essay questions on spanish civil war

The Spanish Civil War

Our next unit will help prepare us for our paper 2 topic: Causes and Effects of 20th Century wars.  The Spanish Civil war will be the second our second civil war.  Our goal will be to compare and contrast this civil war with our previous civil war, the Russian Civil War.  Our unit will be driven by the below key questions:

1. What were the political, social and economic conditions that led to the collapse of the parliamentary government of Spain and the establishment of Prima de Rivera regime?

2. What were the developments during the Primo de Rivera regime and why did it collapse in 1931?

3. How was the political system polarized during the Second Republic and how did the rules of Azana and Gil Robles lead to the collapse of the Second Republic?

4. What were the causes of the Spanish Civil?

5. How did foreign involvement impact the Spanish Civil War and why did the Nationalist forces win the Spanish Civil War?

1. The Spanish Civil War by Frances Lennon

2. Interwar Years: Cooperation and Conflict 

A ssessments

Class Discussions

Short Answer Questions

Essay Plans

Source Analysis

Past Paper 2 Questions (Topics 2 and 3)-On Demand Essay

Socratic Discussion Comparing/Contrasting the Russian and Spanish Civil Wars

Unit Calendar

The Calendar outlines the plan for our day to day in class activities and the homework that will be assigned. The expectation is that students complete all homework assignments for the next lesson unless otherwise indicated on the calendar. While we would like this to be set in stone, unforeseen events and intriguing tangents might change the plan so if you are ever in doubt on what is due and when, please ask

Summary of Spanish Monarchy

Spain's first republic, spain spice analysis, hw: read chapter on the dictatorship of primo de rivera.

Overview of Dictatorship of Primo De Rivera

(in spanish-use auto translate), document analysis (pgs. 10-13) of the primo de rivera dictatorship and the fall of the monarchy fling the teacher: the reign of primo de rivera, hw: read second republic.

Prelude to Tragedy: Causes of the Spanish Civil War

Causes of the spanish civil war essay plan (formative) create an twe essay plan for one of the debated positions on the causes of the spanish civil war.

Spanish Civil War- In Our Time

Resource available, (the spanish civil war by bbc), hw: complete first draft of script.

Knowledge Check- Why did the Nationalists Win?

Work on spanish civil war podcast, hw: complete podcast.

Share Podcasts Review Spanish Civil War

Compare and contrast russian and spanish civil war, group essay planning, hw: review for on-demand essay.

Spanish Civil War On-Demand Essay (Paper 2 Question)

Course Sites

Welcome to CNDLS Course Sites

Welcome to Course Sites from the Center for New Designs in Learning and Scholarship (CNDLS)!

If you are looking for a Commons Blogs site, please email us at [email protected] .

CNDLS Course Sites use WordPress to allow for the easy creation of a course-specific site where students may publish or even create their own sites. There are two approaches, when requesting a course site: 

• Use one course site for you and all your students to contribute to;
• Use a hub-and-spoke model where you as faculty manage one central course site, while each student owns their own site as well. Students can use their sites as a blog or ePortfolio. 

These sites can be made public or private to only students and teachers in the course. Additionally, non-Georgetown users can be added to the sites.

We have created a Resources page to help get you and your students started in WordPress. You can also email [email protected] to request a consultation or schedule a class visit.

Looking for a more flexible website for your course or research? Visit Georgetown.domains .

• University Archives
• Special Collections
• Records Management
• Policies and Forms
• Sound Recordings
• Theses and Dissertations
• Selections From Our Digitized Collections
• Videos from the Archives
• Special Collections Exhibits
• University Archives Exhibits
• Research Guides
• Current Exhibits
• Upcoming Events
• Past Events
• Past Exhibits
• Camelot Comes to Brandeis
• Special Collections Spotlight
• Library Home
• Degree Programs
• Majors and Minors
• Graduate Programs
• The Brandeis Core
• School of Arts and Sciences
• Brandeis Online
• Brandeis International Business School
• Graduate School of Arts and Sciences
• Heller School for Social Policy and Management
• Rabb School of Continuing Studies
• Precollege Programs
• Faculty and Researcher Directory
• Brandeis Library
• Academic Calendar
• Undergraduate Admissions
• Summer School
• Financial Aid
• Research that Matters
• Resources for Researchers
• Brandeis Researchers in the News
• Provost Research Grants
• Recent Awards
• Faculty Research
• Student Research
• Centers and Institutes
• Office of the Vice Provost for Research
• Office of the Provost
• Housing/Community Living
• Campus Calendar
• Student Engagement
• Clubs and Organizations
• Community Service
• Dean of Students Office
• Orientation
• Hiatt Career Center
• Spiritual Life
• Graduate Student Affairs
• Directory of Campus Contacts
• Division of Creative Arts
• Brandeis Arts Engagement
• Rose Art Museum
• Bernstein Festival of the Creative Arts
• Theater Arts Productions
• Brandeis Concert Series
• Public Sculpture at Brandeis
• Women's Studies Research Center
• Creative Arts Award
• Our Jewish Roots
• The Framework for the Future
• Mission and Diversity Statements
• Distinguished Faculty
• Nobel Prize 2017
• Notable Alumni
• Administration
• Working at Brandeis
• Commencement
• Offices Directory
• Faculty & Staff
• Alumni & Friends
• Parents & Families
• 75th Anniversary
• New Students
• Shuttle Schedules
• Support at Brandeis

Robert D. Farber University Archives and Special Collections

Spanish civil war periodical collection, 1923-2009.

Description by Sean Beebe, doctoral student in History and Archives & Special Collections assistant.

A large number of periodicals created during the Spanish Civil War were created by the fighting forces, many by particular units within those forces. These publications were intended to promote the image of those fighters and to help maintain unit morale and cohesion. The January 23, 1938 edition of Nuevo Ejercito (New Army), the newspaper of the 47th Division of the Republican army, contained a summary of the division’s recent combat activity; a Catalan-language page; and unit news, all interspersed with photographs of the division’s soldiers in winter action.

A similar approach is found in La Voz de la Sanidad, the newspaper of the international medical brigade attached to the 15th Division. Befitting the brigade’s multinational status, the paper was written in four languages: Spanish, French, English and German. La Voz de la Sanidad’s content consisted of a mixture of the same items reproduced—side-by-side or on succeeding pages—in each of the four languages, alongside items, both informative and comic, unique to each language.

A second type of periodical served to call for material support for the Republican side. In New York City, African-Americans combined this support with efforts to combat racism at home. The Negro Committee to Aid Spain, sponsored by such notables as Mary McLeod Bethune, Langston Hughes, A. Philip Randolph, Paul Robeson, and Richard Wright, published a pamphlet entitled “A Negro Nurse in Republican Spain,” which recounted the story of Salaria Kee, an African-American nurse from Harlem who joined the volunteer American Medical Unit in 1937.

Kee’s story was juxtaposed with a more general account of those of African-American men who had volunteered for the International Brigades, as racism at home “appeared to them as part of the picture of fascism,” which could be most directly confronted in Spain. The pamphlet chronicled Kee’s early life, decision to go to Spain and her service there, both in hospitals and directly behind the lines — until a shell wound made her unfit for further service. Kee returned to America, and joined the fundraising campaign for which the pamphlet was produced. The text concluded with a quotation from Kee: “Negro men have given up their lives there…as courageously as any heroes of any age. Surely Negro people will just as willingly give of their means to relieve the suffering of a people attacked by the enemy of all racial minorities — fascism — and its most aggressive exponents — Italy and Germany.”

One further form of publication, that of outright propaganda designed to influence hearts and minds, forms an extensive part of the collection. A 1937 edition of the British magazine Spain Illustrated featured photographs (including those of corpses) and articles portraying “a year’s fight for democracy,” and condemning the Nationalists and their fascist backers for the tremendous suffering inflicted upon the Spanish people. The non-interventionist policy of the Western democracies was vilified as an utter failure, with Parliament coming in for particular criticism for its “pro-fascist” stance. Most dramatically, the magazine contended that the defeat of the Republicans would be but the prelude “for attacking England and France…all hope of peace in Europe would be at an end.”

Finally, the example of quasi-neutral international media opens an interesting window on to how the conflict was perceived outside of Spain, outside of an obvious ideological lens. In August 1936, the famed French illustrated magazine, L’Illustration , published a special edition dedicated to the civil war. L’Illustration ’s version of the war was one of utter tragedy, in which “fratricidal” conflict split the nation apart; its editors “could only see in the two Spains in conflict a single country which we love and which suffers.” Consequently, the magazine presented images of the conflict’s devastation, whether the rather graphic images of corpses left in public places, those of defiled churches, or of cities after bombardments and shelling. These particularly dramatic choices appear to serve an almost fatalistic reading of the conflict, in which no action can be taken but to observe this tremendous amount of suffering.

May 2, 2015

Brandeis University's Archives & Special Collections holds a significant amount of material relating to the Spanish Civil War, including over 4,700 books, close to 400 periodicals and roughly 250 posters. In addition, the Charles Korvin photograph collection comprises 244 black and white images taken during the War. Follow the links below for further information about these holdings:

Spanish Civil War periodical collection, 1923-2009 (finding aid)

Charles Korvin photographs, circa 1937-1938 (finding aid)

Spanish Civil War posters, 1936-1938 on Brandeis University’s Institutional Repository

Spotlight on the Spanish Civil War posters

Spotlight on the SCW poster ¡Jovenes! (circa 1937)

• About Our Collections
• Online Exhibits
• Events and In-Person Exhibits
• From the Brandeis Archives

The Abraham Lincoln Brigade Archives Promoting Social Activism and the Defense of Human Rights

• Staff and Board
• ALBA Ethics
• Event Calendar
• About the Database
• Peter N. Carroll Anti-Fascist Education Fund
• GEORGE & RUTH: SONGS AND LETTERS FROM THE SPANISH CIVIL WAR
• Jarama Society
• Lesson Plans
• Teaching Institutes
• Tamiment (NYU Special Collections)
• Film – Invisible Heroes: African Americans in the Spanish Civil War
• Watt Essay Contest
• Online Resources
• ALBA Digital Library
• Letters of Solidarity from Our Sister Organizations for 2022 Annual Gala
• Letters of Solidarity from Our Sister Organizations for 2021 Annual Gala
• They Still Draw Pictures
• Perry Rosenstein Cultural Series
• Susman Lecture
• Event Archive
• Lincoln Brigade Memorial Project
• A Grand Tribute Project
• The Good Fight
• San Francisco Monument
• Volunteer Back Issues
• Email Signup

Lesson Plan: Two Perspectives on the Spanish Civil War

Lesson plan, download and sharing, primary sources.

•   Two documents (see appendix):

Article in The New Yorker by Dorothy Parker and draft of a letter (possibly an op-ed article) by Edgar Allison Peers.  

• Lead-In/Hook (consider one or more of the following questions):How would you have felt about the rise of Nazism if you were living in the U.S. or Great Britain in 1936 (before World War II and before the Holocaust)? Would you have believed in 1936 that Nazism/fascism was a greater or lesser threat to the U.S. than communism? Where would you have acquired knowledge about world events related to either of these political systems?
• Pre-assessment and activation of prior knowledge:What were the features of Hitler’s racial nationalism? What were the features of Leninism/Stalinism? What was the reaction of governments (especially the U.S. and England) and peoples toward these systems? What was the Red Scare and how did it affect Americans’ (and Europeans’) views about communism and anarchism?
• By 1936, the existing republican government in Spain had initiated progressive political and economic reforms; thus, when war broke out the Spanish government (a.k.a. Republicans, Loyalists, Reds)  was supported by socialists and communists throughout the world. It received military aid from the U.S.S.R.
• The rebels (a.k.a. Nationalists, Fascists, Whites), led by Francisco Franco, sought to undo the reforms and return Spain to its conservative, socially stratified, Catholic roots. Franco was supported by many Catholics around the world; the rebels received military aid from Hitler and Mussolini.
• Question students on how people received news of the world in 1936. Possible answers are: newspapers (news as well as editorial pages), magazines, theater newsreels, word of mouth, first-hand accounts from travelers, etc. Discuss the pros and cons of these sources, i.e. which are the most or least reliable? Which are the most powerful in the formation of personal beliefs?
• Review relevant vocabulary from the Peers reading, including “anarcho-syndicalists”
• Ask students to consider an author’s purpose in writing for an op-ed page in a newspaper? How might the purpose be different in writing for a magazine such as The New Yorker, Vanity Fair, or Vogue ?
• Ask students to read the Peers and Parker documents as homework.
• Lead-In/Hook:One way to talk about people’s differences of opinion about a conflict is to say that people adhere to different “stories” about a conflict in which certain element of the conflict are emphasized or de-emphasized. Thus, for some the most important storyline of the Spanish Civil War was the struggle between fascism (the Nationalists) and democracy (the Republicans). For others, it was civilized Christianity (the Nationalists) against godless Communism (the Republicans).
• Divide students into discussion groups of four or five, with half the groups addressing the Peers questions and the other half considering the Parker questions.
• What was Peers’ desire for Spain?
• What storyline was Peers adopting about the Spanish Civil War? Give two or three examples from the reading that support your conclusion.
• What assumptions can you make about the author’s views on politics or religion. Provide evidence from the reading.
• It has been speculated that Peers was writing a draft (never published) for an op-ed (“opposite the editorial” – an opinion article written by someone not on the editorial staff of a newspaper) What was Peers’ intent in writing this article? To what degree might he have influenced the storyline of other people?
• What was Parker’s desire for Spain?
• What storyline was Parker adopting about the Spanish Civil War? Give two or three examples from the reading that support your conclusion.
• What was Parker’s intent in writing an article for The New Yorker ? Did she have a different purpose than the writer of a news story or opinion article? Was her method more or less effective than the direct approach of an op-ed article?
• Whole-class discussion of similarities and differences in perspectives of the two authors.
• Closure – Questions:Has your perspective changed? Does it seem more or less plausible that moderates could support fascism? Why? Had Peers, in adopting his “storyline,” disregarded some of the darker elements of fascism, such as Hitler’s racial views not yet fully realized?

Differentiation

Rather than assigning both documents as homework, assign only the Parker article. On the second day, students in the small (heterogeneous) groups can read the Peers document aloud to each other. This benefits auditory learners and allows students with stronger vocabularies and comprehension to help others in the group.

Potential essay:

Read the introduction and letter by Canute Frankson. What “storyline” was Frankson adopting about the Spanish Civil War? Cite specific examples from the text to support your conclusions. Also, what was Frankson’s intention in writing the letter?

Possible Rubric:

• Students should recognize that Frankson viewed the war as part of a worldwide struggle against Nazism, which he compared to the worst of American slavery.
• In keeping the theme of  the lesson, students could say that Frankson’s storyline was that of “democracy vs. fascism/Nazism.”
• Frankson’s intention was to justify his involvement in the war to a friend who either disagreed with his view of the war, or perhaps did not feel that 1) a European war was the business of a U.S. citizen, or 2) a “white” war was the business of an African-American struggling for civil rights at home.

Appendix 1:  Canute Frankson

Frankson was born in the Parish of St. Catherine, Old Harbor, Jamaica on April 13, 1890. In 1917, together with his wife, Rachel, he emigrated to Wilkes Barre, Pennsylvania, where Frankson worked as a machinist. Frankson eventually settled in Detroit, where he worked in the auto industry. Frankson joined the Communist Party in 1934. He sailed for Europe aboard the Queen Mary on April 21, 1937.

In Spain, skilled machinists were scarce and Frankson with his proven ability was rapidly promoted. He was appointed Head Mechanic at the International Garage in Albacete. Fellow International Garage veteran, Marion Noble, noted that Frankson’s fluency in Spanish was a great asset and that many hours of his free time were spent teaching engine repair classes to young Spaniards.

Frankson returned to the United States aboard the President Harding on September 24, 1938. Frankson was killed in an auto accident in either 1939 or 1940.

Citation: Cary Nelson and Jefferson Hendricks, Madrid 1937 (New York, 1996), pp. 33-35.

Excerpts from letter

Albacete, Spain

July 6, 1937

My Dear Friend,

I’m sure that by this time you are still waiting for a detailed explanation of what has this international struggle to do with my being here. Since this is a war between whites who for centuries have held us in slavery, and have heaped every kind of insult and abuse upon us, segregated and jim-crowed us; why I, a Negro who have fought through these years for the rights of my people, am here in Spain today?

Because we are no longer an isolated minority group fighting hopelessly against an immense giant. Because, my dear, we have joined with, and become an active part of, a great progressive force on whose shoulders rests the responsibility of saving human civilization from the planned destruction of a small group of degenerates gone mad in their lust for power. Because if we crush Fascism here we’ll save our people in America, and in other parts of the world from the vicious persecution, wholesale imprisonment, and slaughter which the Jewish people suffered and are suffering under Hitler’s Fascist heels. All we have to do is to think of the lynching of our people. We can but look back at the pages of American history stained with the blood of Negroes; stink with the burning bodies of our people hanging from trees; bitter with the groans of our tortured loved ones from whose living bodies ears, fingers, toes have been cut for souvenirs, living bodies into which red-hot pokers have been thrust. All because of a hate created in the minds of men and women by their masters who keep us all under their heels while they suck our blood, while they live in their bed of ease by exploiting us…

…We will crush them. We will build us a new society – a society of peace and plenty. There will be no color line, no jim-crow trains, no lynching. That is why, my dear, I’m here in Spain.

On the battlefields of Spain we fight for the preservation of democracy. Here, we’re laying the foundation for world peace, and for the liberation of my people, and of the human race. Here, where we’re engaged in one of the most bitter struggles of human history, there is no color line, no discrimination, no race hatred. There’s only one hate, and that is the hate for Fascism. We know why our enemies are. The Spanish people are very sympathetic towards us. They are lovely people. I’ll tell you about them later…

Don’t think for one moment that the strain of this terrible war or the many miles between us has changed my feelings towards you. Our friendship has meant a great deal to me, and still means much to me. I appreciate it because it has always been a friendship of devoted and mutual interest. And I’ll do whatever is within my power to maintain it.

No one knows the time he’ll die, even under the most favorable conditions. So I, a soldier in active service, must know far less about how far or how close is death. But as long as I hold out I’ll keep you in touch with events. Sometimes when I go to the fronts the shells drop pretty close. Then I think it’s only a matter of minutes. After I return here to the base I seem to see life from a new angle. Somehow it seems to be more beautiful. I’d think of you, home and all my friends, then get to working more feverishly than ever. Each of us must give all we have if this Fascist beast is to be destroyed.

After this is over I hope to share my happiness with you…

So long. Until some future date. One never knows when there’ll be time to write. There’s so much to do and so little time in which to do it.

Appendix 2:  Edgar Allison Peers

Edgar Allison Peers (1891–1952), a professor of Spanish at the University of Liverpool from 1920 until his death, was one of the founding fathers of Hispanic Studies in Great Britain. The son of a civil servant, Peers studied English and French at Cambridge; he was a self-taught Spanish speaker who began traveling to Spain at least once a year from 1920 on. As a high Anglican and political conservative, Peers deeply admired Spanish Catholicism. During the Spanish Civil War he sympathized with the military rebels; he later became disenchanted with Franco. As one of the most authoritative public spokesmen on the topic in both England and the United States, he published seven books and some fifty articles on current Spanish events between 1930 and the late 1940s, in addition to countless public speeches and scores of articles in the Bulletin of Spanish Studies, which he founded.

But at length, after a campaign of exactly three months, conducted with a deliberateness born of confidence and experience, General Franco’s troops are knocking on the gates of Madrid and its early fall, whether with or without a struggle, seems certain.

In Spain, where everything just now is of necessity either black or white, there will be intense exaltation and profound depression at the prospects of a nationalist dictatorship. Over here, the vast majority of sensible people are uninfluenced by Spanish party slogans: they desire, not the complete and overwhelming victory of one of the two ideals, but the return of peace to Spain, followed by an epoch of steady progress.

Can it be said that peace and progress will be brought nearer by a victory for General Franco’s forces? I hope and believe it can.

As far as peace is concerned, it was clear from the beginning of the war that its sole chance lay in an insurgent triumph. [Next section is crossed out:] Was the Popular Front to win, the only possible result would be a long period of dissension, disruption and anarchy. To that everything pointed, when the Popular Front coalition was first made last February, for the purposes of the elections, its own members freely described it as unlikely to survive them. Though it held together during those anarchic months which followed … When the rebels were beaten in Barcelona, a miniature picture was at once provided of the state of things we could expect if they were beaten in the whole of Spain: Anarchists, Communists, Syndicalists displaced in effect the existing Government and jostled each other in an undignified struggle for pre-eminence. Even under conditions of siege, as at Irún and San Sebastián, the two wings of the Popular Front fought each for its own way, and at Irún the quarrel was in the end brutally resolved by wholesale incendiarism and destruction. [end of struck out part.]

One shudders to think what would have happened if these men had become the rulers of the new Spain. This is no mere question of party politics. The academic socialism of Don Fernando de los Ríos is one thing: the fierce Marxism of Maurín is quite another. The Anarcho-Syndicalists, had they come out on top of the mêlée , would have had no more respect for the doctrinaires of the Second Republic whom progressives in this country most generally follow than had these in 1931 for the leading figures of Primo de Rivera’s dictatorship. Indeed, their way with them, if we may judge from their recent behaviour, would have been shorter and sharper still – assassination is so much more convenient a solution than imprisonment or exile!

[Undated handwritten draft]

With a victory of General Franco we may at least look for unity and pacification. The strict discipline inseparable from military rule may be irksome but most Spaniards will find it preferable to a new civil war or even to a régime of growing license into which the Second Republci was fast degenerating. All patriotic Spaniards willing to conform to the regime will find a home in Spain; those who have occupied themselves in supplanting their national flag by the red flag which has done duty for Socialism and Communism and the red-and-black flag of Anarchism can hardly complain if they are invited to look for homes in a country where one of these symbols reigns supreme.

Once General Franco has subdued the whole of Spain he can probably be trusted to hold it in a state of tranquillity until passions have subsided and material progress has once more begun. But then – we shall be almost exactly where we were in 1923! We shall have passed from military dictatorship, through a socialistically inclined Republic, a state of chaos and a period of civil war, back to a military dictatorship again. Can that be the end? Is there no room for progress which goes deeper than thhe making of new roads and the attempt to make trains observe the hours of the time-tables? [added in brackets by EAP:] [If not new reaction absolutely inevitable.]

Only hope in such a case is that the future rulers of Spain might realize that they cannot simply put back the clock and act as if it has never gone forward. While they will have no use for the destructive elements which endeavoured to ruin Spain by creating revolution within the Republic, they will surely respect the position of those who demand higher standards of wages for the agricultural worker, a permanent reform of the Civil Service, gradual introduction of women’s suffrage and improved facilities for education. I do not say that all these things are desirable in Spain but say that they are things which Spaniards who wish for them have a perfect right to advocate by legitimate methods. I may be wrong, but I cannot believe that Spain’s new rulers will wish to implant a dictatorship indefinitely. Even if they did, it would be preferable to indefinite anarchism, but there are lessons to be learned from the fall of Primo de Rivera which stare the intelligent man in the face and I do not think that General Franco is lacking in intelligence.

[Struck out:] At the very least, there is hope for Spain in the victory of a party whose battle-cry is “Up, Spain”, who revere the traditions still held by a vast majority of the Spaniards and who have established peace and quietness in al the cities in which they have already triumphed.

Appendix 3:  Dorothy Parker

Dorothy Parker (August 22, 1893–June 7, 1967) was an American writer and poet, best known for her caustic wit, wisecracks, and sharp eye for 20th century urban foibles.

She sold her first poem to Vanity Fair magazine in 1914 and some months later, she was hired as an editorial assistant for another Condé Nast magazine, Vogue . She moved to Vanity Fair as a staff writer following two years at Vogue.

Her greatest period of productivity and success came in the next 15 years. In the 1920s alone she published some 300 poems and free verses in outlets including the aforementioned Vanity Fair , Vogue , “The Conning Tower” and The New Yorker along with Life , McCall’s and The New Republic .

Some of her most popular work was published in The New Yorker in the form of acerbic book reviews under the byline “Constant Reader.”

Soldiers of the Republic ( pdf )

Citation: “Soldiers of the Republic”, originally appeared in The New Yorker on February 5, 1938.

This biography excerpt was taken from Wikipedia.

Free essays on the Spanish Civil War

Although it’s difficult to deem what the exact crime and evidence used against the “Anarchotrotskyists” would have been if the trial had been allowed to take place.  When assessing “The Claim” it’s difficult to analyse the extent to which the supposed Trotskyist crimes against the Republican government can be deemed to be true as the Communist aspects within the Republican government were predominantly Stalinist sympathising thus their judgement may have been perhaps limited because of such things as the Moscow Show Trials which displayed Trotsky as a supposed opponent to Communism  When looking at the May Days we must bare in mind that at this time that Stalin was not considered to be such a monster as he is now as much of the left simply didn’t accept events such as the purges and Ukrainian famine to have happened to the extent that we know them to have had now. Thus mine and I can imagine a great number of peoples judgement of someone referring to themselves as a Stalinist are clouded by more recent historical truths.   Historic Antagonism   When looking at the history of the Spanish left it begins to appear that the May Days were an inevitable clash between Anarchism and Communism as within Spain these two different ideologies had been vying for popularity for many years. If we briefly look at the history of both groups within Spain this becomes quite apparent.   Although obviously not either an Anarchist or a Communist the most radical movement in the mid-19th were the followers of Pierre-Joseph Proudhorn, the most famous of these “federalists”, in Spain, was Fransesc Pi i Margall whom was regarded as being “the wisest of the federalists, almost an anarchist” by Ricardo Mella and also interestingly the only prime minister of the short lived First Spanish Republic of 1873. What we can gather from this is that Spanish “radicals” historically veered to the libertarian side of the left rather than the more federalist communism.[13]   The first major introduction of Anarchism to Spain was through a visit in 1868 by Giuseppe Fanelli the famous Italian Anarchist revolutionary, which was organised by perhaps the most influential figure of Anarchism, Mikhail Bakunin, to recruit members for the newly formed First International[14] (which aimed to unite different left-wing socialist, communist and anarchist political groups as well as trade-union organisations as well as creating a forum for discussion).[15] In 1872 the anarchists split from the International. Anthony Beevor describes this as being because “Bakunin utterly distrusted Marx’s character and predicted that the philosophy of such a man could only lead to dictatorship and deceit.”[16] If Beevor is to believed it seems inevitable that the two would be destined to split and secondly that the ideologies presented by these two intellectuals would not be able to coexist because of their contradictory nature of them as well as the emphasis both put on the problems with the others views and the negative affects such ideologies, if followed, would have.   In 1871 Marx sent his son-in-law Paul Lafargue to Spain after the fall of the Paris Commune.[17] During his time in Spain he is said to have laid the basis of Spanish Marxist socialism in Madrid.[18] Beevor writes that “The Marxists’ lack of success, in comparison to the anarchists, was partly due to the emphasise they placed on the central state. The idea of a ‘parliamentary road to socialism’ was unthinkable in such a blatantly crooked electoral system as Spain’s.”[19] Marx is said to have written to Engels that they would have to leave Spain to Bakunin for the time being.  Due to the popularity of Anarchism in Spain it’s perhaps not surprising that the 1936 revolution was predominantly an Anarchist movement [20] with much of Spain’s economy being put under worker control; in anarchist strongholds like Catalonia, the figure was as high as 75%, but lower in areas with heavy PCE influence.[21]  Any chance of cooperation between the two groups within Spain was further harmed in 1923 when Primo brought the secretary of the UGT, Fransisco Largo Caballero, into his government to set up industrial arbitration boards.[22] This was much against Anarchist principles as it was seen to be entirely “counterrevolutionary” to have any link to the bourgeois government as they were essentially the “enemy”.   It could perhaps be these historic relationships between Anarchism and Communism that caused such antagonism throughout the war as both ideologies had never previously been able to coexist and when present in the same environment tended to clash. Ultimately when the communists sided with the Republican government and attempted to disband the militias in favour of a “Popular Army”,[23] disarm private citizens and create a non-unionised army went against many of the “victories” that the Anarchists had made at the beginning of the revolution. Thus the Anarchists had to make the decision to either put up with these changes in order to form a “Popular Front” against the Fascists or continue their more Libertarian revolution.  When looking at these events from a historically determinist viewpoint it could be argued that the historical antagonism between Communists and Anarchists, both generally and specifically is Spain, caused the Barcelona May Days as at the inception of the “revolution” it was inevitable that it’s final resting place could not be ideologically inclusive of both views. The question therefore lies: if there was no Spanish Civil would these opposition groups have clashed in such a violent manner? At least hypothetically it seems that this would have been unlikely as events like the establishment of a regular army and moves towards more capitalist forms of production transpired to have brought these two groups into a hostility. Without such events it seems that antagonism of the nature seen in the May Days would have been unlikely to occur. We could perhaps therefore look at the Spanish Civil War as a catalyst for the May Days which brought historical opposition to a violent head.  This exacerbation of the situation could perhaps be partially attributed to the split on the Communist side with anti-Stalinists now forming a large group within Spain and  because of their anti-Soviet views be more likely allies of the Anarchists, which naturally would have unnerved the Stalinist aspects within Republican government who were at this time striving for a more Stalinist style governmental system. The Anarcho-Syndicalist Standpoint   Before embarking upon the views of Anarchists we must firstly remember that rather than a small and inconsequential left wing faction, as anarchists are regarded in many European countries, in 1934 and, I dare say, even now anarchists, hold great public support within Spain. In 1934 the CNT’s, “according to a government source”, membership numbered 1.58 million people whereas the UGT’s membership was 1.44 million.[24]   The Anarcho-Syndicalist standpoint is along the line of the May Days being part of a much wider move to make an originally predominantly anarchist revolution more inline with a Stalinist agenda. For this reason the IWA (International Workers Association), essentially the English cousin of the CNT, have written an article about why the May Days were significant as they saw the “Communists made their decisive move”[25] against the CNT and it’s associates as they stormed the CNT controlled telephone exchange which was seen to be symbolic of a much larger aim of “reintroducing capitalist modes of production.”[26] Which is against Anarcho-Syndicalist philosophy that sets out how industry should not be controlled on  a central level but instead by individual trade unions.[27]  The article from the IWA goes on to refer to a “courageous” plea made by the leadership of the CNT which read “Workers of the CNT! Workers of the UGT! Don’t be deceived by these manoeuvres. Above all else, Unity! Put down your arms. Only one slogan: We must work to beat fascism! Down with fascism!”[28] This call was mostly headed, leading to a stop in the fighting and can perhaps explains why Anarchist trade unions were not targeted after the May Days to the same extent that the POUM was. The article however fails to mention that this call to create a “popular-front” and essentially put on hold the “revolution” was not shared by all Anarcho-Syndicalist factions, the more radical Friends of Durruti whom were calling for a all out “revolution” against the “counter-revolutionary” republican government.[29]   To summarise the Anarcho-Syndicalist perspective, groups like the CNT and FAI took the view that the PCE and Republican government were attempting to attack the principles upon which the revolution had been built. However in the most part they took up the opinion that this conflict was one to be had later and at this time it was far more important to stop the Fascists winning the war. However we must also not forgot that there were those within these main Unions as well as in the Friends of Durutti militia who felt that any hope of the prolongation of the revolution depended upon the Republican government being combated at this time. The Trotskyist Standpoint   In the eyes of many Trotskyists a conflict with the republican government was in some ways inevitable and perhaps desirable. This was because the republican government was moving towards a more Soviet Union style system of government[30] which obviously went against the anti-Stalinist views of the “Trotskyists”.  The liquidation of a “revolutionary” atmosphere in Barcelona is no better shown than in George Orwell’s accounts of the Spanish Civil War. When he first arrived in Barcelona on the 26th of December 1936 [31] he described a situation were “there were no private motor cars”, “revolutionary posters were everywhere, flaming from the walls in clean reds and blues” and “except for a small number of women and foreigners there were no ‘well-dressed’ people at all.”[32] This seemingly couldn’t be more in contrast to his description of Barcelona just prior to the May Days with him writing that “The smart restaurants and hotels were full of rich people wolfing expensive meals, while for the working-class population food-prices had jumped enormously.”[33] Understanding this situation, it seems conceivable that the so called “Trotskyists” would want to show there opposition to the Stalinists and the republican government. This would therefore support an argument for the Trotskyists starting the May Days although obviously not in the sense that they were acting under Fascist orders whilst trying to undermine Stalinist elements within the Republican government.   It could therefore be said that although many “Trotskyists” desired a confrontation in order to challenge Stalinist influence within the Republican government, the actual violence of the May Days was in the most part triggered by the Stalinists with the taking of the telephone exchange and the clamping down on Trotskyist militias and leaders both after and before the May Days. Conclusion   It’s obvious that the historical opposition between the Anarchists and Communists and later the Stalinists and Trotskyists played a major part in the creation of a climate in which a conflict could occur. This can be seen by the numerous disagreements in the past that in the case of Anarchism and Communism lead to the Anarchists leaving the First International and secondly the opposition of Trotsky to Stalin in Russia which lead to the Moscow show trials, due to these events it does not seem inconceivable that such groups could clash in such a way in Spain.  What also seems to be clear is that Stalinist influence played a major part in causing antagonism between the Republican government and the POUM as well as Anarcho-Syndicalist groups, through the creation of a “Popular Army” as well as moving towards more capitalist modes of production. It could perhaps be said that it was through the taking of the CNT controlled telephone exchange that the situation was ignited.  In reference to the Trotskyist involvement in causing the May Days, it seems inconceivable that they could have had caused it in the way that many Stalinist insinuate/have insinuated. Although I’m sure that the Trotskyists didn’t cause the May Days in the sense that they were Fascist spies and in league with Hitler. They perhaps contributed to the situation that caused it’s occurrence with many members of the POUM, as I’ve previously mentioned, believing that a confrontation with the Republican government was desirable.   To summarise the “Trotskyist” factions were as far as I can see partially to blame for the conflict as they did nothing to prevent such a clash occurring. Although through my research it seems that the Stalinist government played a far larger part in creating the conflict as they both brought about the events that made cooperation no longer an option for both the Anarchists and Trotskyists as many of their aims had now been marginalised. The aftermath also shows us that the Stalinists capitalised on the conflict in such a way that it seems unlikely that it was simply a consequence of the clashes. Alongside the roles of factions in the immediate build up to the conflict it seems that the role of the long run antagonism within the left in Spain must not be overlooked as it appears to have done more than anything to create a climate in which a confrontation could occur. Footnotes:   [1] Hitchens, Christopher. Hitch 22: A Memoir. London: Atlantic, 2011. 72. Print  [2] Hitchens, Christopher. Hitch 22: A Memoir. London: Atlantic, 2011. 72. Print  [3] Leys, Simon. Orwell & the Anarchists. http://www.nybooks.com/articles/archives/2011/sep/29/orwell-and-anarchists/. 2011. Web  [4] Durgan, Andy, The Spanish Trotskyists and the Foundation of the POUM in The Spanish Civil War: The View From The Left - Al Richardson. Pontypool: The Merlin Press Ltd, 1992. 47. Print  [5] Held, Walter. Stalinism and the POUM in the Spanish Revolution. Quatrième Internationale, 1937. Print  [6] Rees, Tim. International Communism and the Communist International, 1919-43, Manchester University Press, 1998. 154. Print  [7] Souchy, Augustin. A Tragic Week In May. London: Freedom Press, 1987. 17. Print.  [8] Courtouis, Stéphane. The Black Book of Communism. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1999. 340. Print  [9] Brockway, Fenner. Arrest of P.O.U.M. leaders. International Bureau for Revolutionary Socialist Unity, 1937. Print  [10] Solano, Wilebaldo. The Spanish Revolution The Life of Andreu Nin. ILP: 1974. Print  [11] Ibárruri, Dolores. Memorias de Dolores Ibárruri. Barcelona: Planeta, 1985. 383. Print  [12] Solano, Wilebaldo. The Spanish Revolution The Life of Andreu Nin. ILP: 1974. Print  [13] Bookchin, Murray. To Remember Spain: The Anarchist and Syndicalist Revolution of 1936. San Francisco: AK Press. 1994. Print  [14] Guillaume, James. Michael Bakunin A Biographical Sketch. New York : Knopf. 1971. 23. Print  [15] Raymond, Walter. Dictionary of politics: selected American and foreign political and legal terms. Brunswick Publishing Corp. 1992. 85. Print  [16] Beevor, Anthony. The Spanish Civil War. Penguin Books. 2006. 24. Print  [17] Heywood, Paul. Marxism and the Failure of Organised Socialism in Spain, 1879-1936. Cambridge University Press. 2003. 6. Print  [18] Beevor, Anthony. The Spanish Civil War. Penguin Books. 2006. 26. Print  [19] Beevor, Anthony. The Spanish Civil War. Penguin Books. 2006. 26. Print  [20] Bookchin, Murray. To Remember Spain: The Anarchist and Syndicalist Revolution of 1936. San Francisco: AK Press. 1994. Print  [21] Dolgoff, Sam. The Anarchist Collectives: Workers' Self-Management in the Spanish Revolution.  New York Free Life Editions. 1974. 41. Print  [22] Beevor, Anthony. The Spanish Civil War. Penguin Books. 2006. 31. Print  [23] Colberg, Barbara. The Effect of Communist Party Policies on the Outcome of the Spanish Civil War.The Ohio State University. 2007. 33. Print  [24] Beevor, Anthony. The Spanish Civil War. Penguin Books. 2006. 27. Print  [25] http://www.solfed.org.uk/the-‘may-days’-in-barcelona-1937. The ‘May Days’ in Barcelona 1937. Web  [26] http://www.solfed.org.uk/the-‘may-days’-in-barcelona-1937. The ‘May Days’ in Barcelona 1937. Web  [27] Rocker, Rudolf. Anarchism and Anarcho-Syndicalism. Freedom Press. 21.1988. Print  [28] http://www.solfed.org.uk/the-‘may-days’-in-barcelona-1937. The ‘May Days’ in Barcelona 1937. Web  [29] The friends of Durruti group. Towards a Fresh Revolution. 1938. Print  [30] Colberg, Barbara. The Effect of Communist Party Policies on the Outcome of the Spanish Civil War. The Ohio State University. 2007. 33. Print  [31] Orwell, George. Orwell In Spain. Penguin Classics. 2011. 6. Print  [32] Orwell, Geroge. Homage to Catalonia. Mariner Books. 1980. 3. Print  [33] Orwell, Geroge. Homage to Catalonia. Mariner Books. 1980. 98. Print

In July 1936, in parallel to German troops marching in the Rhineland and the Rome-Berlin Axis being signed, the Spanish Civil war broke out. A consequence of complete opposite ideologies, unhappiness towards democracy and an appeal to extreme solutions, Spain soon fell under the same situation happening in neighboring countries, Germany and Italy, where Fascism was taking over. From 1923 to 1930 General Primo de Rivera ruled the country after years of an incompetent government in power. Following the 1929 Wall Street Crash and Great Depression, Spain and many more countries suffered a severe economic crisis, which led Alfonso XIII to abdicate and the end of a monarchy. As unhappiness and lost hope increased among the population in Spain, the popularity of two main opposing groups grew, the right-wing Nationalists and the left-wing Republicans. Professor Alaric Searle describes the civil war as a war that “had a clear division between the major totalitarian participants and the democratic observers.” This essay will in fact analyze and evaluate the difference in ideologies of the two main forces fighting in the Spanish Civil war and how their role and additional complications affected the victory of the Nationalist right-wing party.

José Calvo Sotelo, a leading member of the monarchist and conservative right-wing party in the parliament, was murdered on July 13th, 1936 by a close connection to the leader of the Spanish Socialist Workers’ Party (PSOE), Indalecio Prieto. This event was the spark that started the previously planned military coup by the Nationalists, which later failed and officially marked the start of the Spanish Civil War. The so-called Nationalist group led by General Franco was amused by the totalitarian fascist ideology whose popularity was growing in both Italy and Germany around the same time. Supported by the Army, the Church and many landowners, this political group had the tendency to only focus on the military aspects of a conflict. As they all claimed they were fighting for law and order, they also felt the need to protect the Church from godless political parties like the Communists. The Nationalists was how the numerous right-wing groups decided to call themselves prior of the war. However, even though the name may suggest that they all share the same ideology, they didn’t. In fact, it was a group made up of the Carlists, who demanded a restoration of monarchy; the Falange, a fascist group favoring a dictatorship; the Nationalists, who fought for a strong government and a national attitude; and finally the Military and the CEDA, group of right-wing parties leaders. Clearly, all groups had different aims and ideologies in mind, however they shared one similarity which was the enemy, specifically the Communist party. The role of ideology within the Nationalists was crucial, with only one aim connecting all groups it had to be strong, passionate and clear enough for them to fight together. Foreign interest was as equally divided, in fact countries like Britain decided to follow non-intervention. Nevertheless, countries such as Italy, Germany and Russia joined either side due to their immense interest in who would win the war and therefore affect any political, economic or social connections with Spain. I believe the support to the Nationalists from such charismatic fascist countries such as Italy and Germany, definitely played a role in uniting the differences in ideologies from all right-wing countries. The belief of fighting alongside such passionate totalitarian states that shared some of the same ideals and definitely the same enemy, had an impact on how much the groups believed in one another as they fought against the same enemy. Therefore, observing all ideology differences part of the Nationalists the chances of internal fighting was high, however the fact that they shared the same enemy and threat tightened the bond between them.

Foreign investment also played a major role in maintaining fanatic loyalty within Nationalist members and all ideology differences may have become secondary to them while fighting. As Eric Hobsbawm claims, these times, such as the Spanish Civil War years can be defined as “Ages of extremes”, this can suggest how the Republic ideology was the complete opposite of any right- wing beliefs from the Nationalists. After the abdication of the King Alfonso XIII and the fall of the monarchy, the atmosphere of republicanism was growing. The republican left-wing government was elected at the start of 1936, whose ideology wanted radical change after years of instability and skepticism in the government. Supported by army officers, workers and peasants, their ideology to solve problems was based on the organization of strikes, riots and assassinations. Some of their first radical changes, included Catalonia being allowed to be a self-government, attacks on the Church and its power and the nationalization of large states, which were against all different right-wing party’s ideologies. Also known as the Popular Front, the Republican opposition was made up of 3 main left-wing ideology-based groups  whose differences severely weakened their position later in the war. This group was made up of the Anarchists, who believed in no borders, and complete freedom; the Syndicalists, who was a powerful group of trade unions and wanted to overthrow the capitalist system; and finally, the Socialists, who in fact were despised by the two previously stated left-wing groups, because of their ideology appeal to the middle-class groups instead of the workers. Led by Largo Caballero, the Socialists party in charge, decided to not support the government anymore, which gained the support of the communists as well, hoping the government would fail and they could seize power. The clear and tragic differences in ideologies between these 4 left-wing groups, had little to no equal ideologies, similarly to the Nationalist groups. However, unlike the Nationalists, the Republican’s foreign interest and intervention played a weak role in keeping the different ideologies together to fight against the same enemy. Even if the USSR, a communist state, offered intervention to the Republicans, their support was weak, underequipped and old-fashioned. The USSR decided to provide the left-wing army in Spain with old ammunition, aircraft and military resources reserves, which were no longer needed or wanted in the USSR. Stalin also firmly believed that all Anarchists and Socialists should be weakened since they did not support communist ideology completely. As a result, he considered them as enemies as well and murdered many of them. This weak, violent and unstable connection between groups part of the Popular Front, started to affect the final outcome fighting against the Nationalists, leading to Republican defeat in March 1939.

Looking beyond the ideology conflicts which caused the civil war, factors like the Great Depression added pressure and unhappiness among the Spanish population. Just like in numerous other countries, like Britain, Italy and Japan, the Great Depression after 1929 severely caused problems within these nations. Prior to the war, as Spain was still a monarchy, the country was considered quite backwards, with very few industries based on the production of steel and iron, and it mostly relied on the agriculture market. As a result of the Wall Street Crash in 1929 and the Great Depression, in Spain, agricultural prices were drastically falling due to the drop in important trades with outside countries in economic instability. Both wine and olive exports declined, as a result peasants and workers unemployment increased. This can explain the support and appeal to the left-wing ideology at the beginning of the 1930s, who prioritized workers, their positions and wages. Although, all solutions  presented by the left-wing parties, soon resulted in little to no change to the worker’s conditions and problems, therefore causing the support loss of many workers contributing to the start of the civil war. Consequently, the small industrialized market in Spain of iron fell by a third, while steel production fell by a half. Looking a few years forward, foreign intervention was very much needed in order to fight a war, since such metal production had drastically fallen, unable to provide ammunition and resources to both Nationalists and Republicans. Just as we can observe a similar situation happening in Weimar Germany, the population was clearly unhappy, exhausted and had lost belief in the government, here the extreme and drastic solutions that both the right-wing and left-wing parties proposed, turned out to be very appealing to the population. In Spain, the lost trust in the government resulted in political and social infighting from different groups in the population, leading a tragic division of ideologies. In conclusion, after carefully analyzing and evaluating how the ideology differences from the right-wing Nationalist party and the left-wing Republican party contributed to the start of the civil war, it is clear to see that there was a great threat posed by opposing ideologies. Such extreme ideologies as these, clearly caused conflicts and severe disagreements within the population and the groups themselves, which could only be heard by the organization of violent attacks or assassinations. While ideology differences inside the numerous groups forming the Nationalists could be kept together with the help of foreign fascist intervention and the aim of defeating the same enemy, the Republican army fell apart due to the same reasons. Both opposing parties appealed to very different approaches of totalitarian states, where the military aspect had a tendency to only be focused on. In addition to these great differences in ideologies, the Great Depression certainly played a major role in the building up to such extreme divisions in the country. Results of the depression such as unhappiness, economic and political problems led the population to follow and believe in extreme ideals, dividing the population further.

 In 1936 a civil conflict broke out in Spain between the country's republican government and a nationalist movement led by Francisco Franco, after over 100 years of social, economic and political disputes. Both Republicans and Nationalists could be considered amalgamations of different political groups, each with differing ideologies. Furthermore, there was great ideological polarization in Europe at the time, which marked the reactions of the other countries when it came to the conflict. Due to this “Evaluating the role of ideological differences in the Spanish Civil War” can be considered quite a broad and vague prompt as said ideological differences found their way into all aspects of the conflict. In order to analyze their role more effectively this essay will describe their influence in starting, fuelling and deciding the victor of the conflict. This essay will argue that while ideological differences played a major role in starting and, on a more minor scale, fueling the war, it was the overwhelming power difference granted to the two combatting sides by the military support of foreign countries, or lack thereof, that ultimately sustained the war and decided its outcome. While Ideological differences were clearly a crucial factor in starting the war, it is not a stretch to argue that they might have had little importance in commencing the conflict. The motivation that most likely sparked the war on July 17th 1936 was the pent up frustration and displeasure on the part of all the exponents of conservatism in Spain, built up by a series of radically liberal reforms made by the government. One of these major exponents being the CEDA party (Confederación Española de Derechas Autónomas), the most influential catholic force in Spanish politics, who were naturally perturbed by the government’s “separation of the church and the state” which denied, under article 26 of the constitution, funding for the catholic church; repurposing some of their properties, and banning clerics from teaching in schools. Likewise, integral conservative and nationalist parties such as Acción Española, as well as the aristocracy, strongly  disapproved the nationalization of large estates, such as land, banks and railways, in addition to the agrarian reforms and the strides that were being made to give more freedom to Catalonia and the Basque Country. Additionally, the Spanish Military Union (Unión Militar Española), of which Franco was a part of, felt betrayed by the government’s amnesty of left wing political prisoners and the discharging or transfer of various military leaders. Furthermore the fascist Falange group was intent on establishing a fascist government in Spain under the example of Italy and Germany. Lastly, groups like the Alfonsists and Carlists, who advocated for the reinstitution of the Spanish monarchy, were ideologically opposed to the idea of a democratic government in the first place. The rise to power of the Popular Front in the elections of 1936 and their immediate radical liberal reforms, thus forced a strong communion of interests among all the differing right wing ideologies. And together with the structural weakness, due to the clash of ideologies, of the Popular Front, which included a heterogeneous mixture of parties such as the socialists, syndicalists and communists (with the addition of the anarchists), that made a possible war more appealing to the right, a conflict was made inevitable. However the straw that broke the camel's back was the murder of right wing polititian Calvo Sotelo by the Republican guard which led the right wing to believe that force was the only option. On the other hand, it can also be argued that, as AJP Taylor said referring to Hitler rather than the war, the Great Depression put wind in the Spanish civil war’s sails, as the 1929 stock market crash was what caused the great ideological divide present in Spain in the first place. Due to the depression unemployment skyrocketed and the Republic lost support of the working class. Due to this the government was forced to give into the people’s demands more to regain their support, this led to a much more “socialist” way of governing, as well as all the aforementioned reforms. Furthermore, it can also be argued that what truly moved the right wing to action  were the economic interest of different social classes. The military officers were simply moved by their forced premature retirements that caused them trouble economically and in terms of social status. The conservative representatives, who were largely landowners, and the members of the church were hit economically by the nationalization of their estates as well as a general loss of power, which, for the landowners, also came largely due to the agrarian reforms. While the Industrialists were hit hard by the nationalization of railways and the government enforced increase in worker rights and salaries. And while this economic argument does explain the actions that led to the start of the war in a similar way to the previous one, it still represents the polarization of opposite ideologies involving the conceptions of social order, the roles of Church and State, the battle between obscurantism and modernization. As the war progressed, the ideological conflict attracted the interest of major international powers with similar ideologies (Italy and Germany on the side of the Nationalists and the USSR on the side of the republicans). To some extent Hitler and Mussolini chose to get involved in the conflict in order to stop the spread of communism and spread their own Fascist ideology. Much like his fascist counterparts, Stalin was concerned with the recent rise of fascism in europe and offered his help to the republicans in order to marginalize its advance and increase the influence of communism. Stalin however was not alone as the anti fascist sentiment had spread throughout the world, which led to the formation of the International Brigades counting over 40000 men from 53 different nations. These soldiers truly believed in their ideology and risked their lives for it; they believed they were fighting a crucial battle against evil as shown in the Irish song “​Viva la Quinta Brigada​'' in which lyrics like “truth and love against the forces of evil” truly carry the sense of determination and passion these men felt during the conflict. This shows how ideological differences played a key role in turning a civil  war into a global conflict that would affect the lives of people the world over as well as in extending the conflict and fueling the bloodshed. However Hitler and Mussolini’s motivations ran much deeper and were much more strategically based than simply supporting a war of ideologies. The two dictators hoped that a nationalist Spain would be a valuable ally against France and Britain, an alliance that would give them control over much of mainland Europe and an especially strong advantage against France. In addition, well agreed upon sentiments regarding Hitler and Mussolini’s motivations are that of historian and author Eileen Heyes who argues that for Hitler the Spanish civil war was merely “a chance to test the weapons and planes Germany was building” and that of the Naval War College (U.S.) which states that Mussolini “coveted access to bases from which he could easily ravage vital French strategic routes in the western Mediterranean”, access that he would later obtain. This, together with the fact that Franco wasn’t actually a pure Fascist, thus reducing the importance of ideological influence, shows how these countries' motivations for fueling the war were much more tactical than ideological. To further reinforce the idea that pure ideological motivation wasn’t enough of a reason to further fuel the conflict, on the other side Stalin only offered minimal support and mainly focussed his efforts on encouraging the Comintern to act, while France, Britain and the US refused to act out of domestic issues, military incapability and lack of strategic interest respectively. Ideological Differences also played a minor role in deciding the victor of the Spanish civil war. While the nationalists were unified in their aim, had a common enemy and a charismatic leader in Francisco Franco, the republicans were divided by Ideological differences, often clashing with each other. The anarchists and communists fought each other in Barcelona, the communists themselves being divided into Stalinists and Trotskyites. There was even a change in leadership as Caballero was replaced by Juan Negrín. Showing how ideological differences  ended up playing a limited, secondary role in deciding the victor of the civil war. Ultimately, it is evident that the prime reason for the Republican loss in the spanish civil war was the overwhelming discrepancy in military resources between the two armies. As discussed before the Republican army was offered only a fraction of the military support the Nationalists received. Italy offered around 80000 men, 157 tanks and 458 aircrafts and much more while Germany supported the Nationalist army by air dropping them to the continent from Morocco with the use of the Condor Legion, a special aircraft unit, as well as also offering equipment and men. Crucially, the international community signed a non-intervention agreement. The US had their own non intervention policy and therefore refused involvement in foreign countries’ affairs. The United Kingdom was struggling with the consequences of the Great Depression, public opinion was extremely anti war and the army was in no shape to fight a large scale conflict. France on the other hand was already worried by a possible conflict with Germany and thus opted not to participate in the war. Even the aid the Republicans received was limited and subpar. It only included the 40000 international brigade volunteers as well as obsolete weapons and aircrafts from the Soviet Union all heavily priced and whose payment was to be immediate and in gold. Further adding insult to injury, Nationalist war leaders were highly skilled, experienced soldiers as a large part of the experienced army officers aligned themselves with the right wing cause. This exemplifies the relative non importance of ideological differences in deciding the victor of the Spanish civil war as even without internal turmoil, the Republicans were left at an insurmountable military disadvantage. In conclusion, while ideological differences played a crucial role in starting the civil war; as a whole, they did not contribute in a significant manner to the events that followed, and thus played an overall supporting role to that of foreign intervention that was key in fuelling and deciding the outcome of the conflict.

Foreign intervention played a key role in the outcome of the Spanish civil war, leading to a Nationalist victory and Republican loss. Germany and Italy, the fascist powers of Europe, supported the nationalists under Franco, supplying them with weapons, strategy, supplies and to a smaller extent soldiers. The Republicans on the other hand received support from the soviet union, receiving limited and outdated weaponry such as the Heinkel airplanes as well as little manpower other than the International brigades, which contained 36,000 untrained men. Additionally, the republicans did not receive aid from the only other Democratic powers in Europe, Britain and France, as they had a non-intervention policy. This essay will argue that Foreign intervention on one side and limited intervention on the other were the main cause for the victory of Franco’s nationalists. Firstly, a look into the support received by the Republicans is required. The republicans received resources from the Soviet Union in exchange for their gold reserves. This meant that the Republicans no longer had money to buy resources from anyone and were solely reliant on the Soviet Union for support. This can be seen by them not buying weaponry and resources from any foreign power. The Soviets, supplied with the Spanish gold reserves, provided the Republicans with a few hundred tanks and airplanes yet no actual soldiers to support them other than the International Brigades which were organized by the Comintern. This meant that the Soviets were unwilling to provide real assistance to the Spaniards as they did not consider this war important enough for Russian lives to be lost. This is further detailed by George Orwell, as he determines that there were very few Russians within the international brigade and that there were no trained Russian units fighting in the war. The planes and pilots the soviets provided the Republicans ultimately proved ineffective and unimportant in the outcome of the war. The Heinkel airplanes proved no match for the German Messerschmitt’s provided by the Condor legion which ultimately led to a loss of air superiority in 1937. Additionally, the Russian tanks proved ineffective as they broke down and as there were no mechanics nor resources to fix them, the Nationalists gained superiority in the flatlands. The lack of strategy within the Republican army allowed the Nationalists to take the entirety of western Spain within a year. This could have been avoided had the Soviets sent over trained brigades as well as commanders, as they would have been able to put up a strategic defense of the western part of Spain as well the major cities. Ultimately tanks and airplanes were instrumental in the taking of the two major Republican cities of Madrid and Barcelona as detailed by George Orwell when describing the loss of morale within the International Brigades and subsequently the Spanish Republican volunteers. In conclusion, due to the lack of foreign intervention in support of the Republicans they could not keep up with the Nationalists and the support they received from the Italians and Germans However, the Republicans would have been unable to win the war were it not for German and Italian intervention. Firstly, the Army of Africa would have been unable to cross over to mainland Spain as they would not have had any means of transportation. The Germans supplied the army with an airlift while the Italians supplied the ships moving the supplies with air cover. Without this air cover and airlift, the Nationalists would have been unable to cross the Mediterranean. The Army of Africa would have had to go by sea as they had no airplanes in Morocco and the airplanes under Nationalist control in the Mainland would have been unable to carry the soldiers. This can be seen as there were only 10 planes under Nationalist control. The sea was controlled by the Republicans, as they still remained in control of the navy. Therefore, any attempts to cross the Mediterranean by boat would have been stopped and would most likely have made the war far easier for the Republicans. The Army of Africa was instrumental to Nationalist victory. In 1936, the Army of Africa took control of almost the entirety of western Spain, stretching all the way from Cadiz, to Corunna. The reason for this was that the soldiers were trained and under the command of a well-respected General. The soldiers also had far superior supplies to those of the regular Spanish army, as they had machine guns and weapons which were needed in their conquest of Morocco. These soldiers had also experience battles before, as they were stationed in rebellious Morocco, therefore their morale was far higher and rarely decreased. The assistance of Foreign powers was also instrumental in decreasing the morale of the soldiers of the Republican army. The Italians decreased the morale through the destruction of the ships carrying resources for the Republicans using submarines. This can be seen by the lower conscription numbers in 1936-37, the increase in 1938 occurring due to heightened morale after the Italians agreed to stop bombing the ports. Additionally, the gruesome bombing of Guernica by the Condor legion, as portrayed by Pablo Picasso, led to the Germans instilling fear in the Republican cities, as they were now aware as to what will happen if they resist the Nationalists. This can be seen by the swift fall of Bilbao. This meant that the Nationalists were able to move through Spain at a far greater speed as they could take major cities very quickly. Additionally, air superiority as well as tanks played a major role in the taking of the major cities of Barcelona and Madrid. The German Messerschmitt’s outmatched the Soviet Heinkel’s in the war due to their superior technology as they were built far later. The superiority of German planes can also be seen in operation Barbosa were the Germans achieved air superiority over Stalingrad before moving their planes to the west. Addiotionally, tanks played a key role in taking the major cities, as the conscripted soldiers had no tools to fight them, as detailed by George Orwell’s description of the fall of Barcelona. Finally, German and Italian assistance was vital in the Nationalists winning the Spanish civil war. In conclusion, although both sides received foreign aid, the German and Italian proved much more effective than the Russian aid and was the only reason the Nationalists won the war. Had the airlift of the Army of Africa not occurred, the Republicans would have remained in control of the government just as they remained in control after the riots in 1936, they did not require soviet assistance for that and would not have required it to stop the soldiers of the mainland Army that decided to join the Nationalists. 

  From the May 2018 IBDP History Paper 2 Exam

 Examine the long- and short-term causes of one 20th-century war. 

As stated by Antoine de Saint-Exupery, “A civil war is not a war but a sickness...The enemy is within. One fights against oneself”. The Spanish Civil War, which took place from 1936-39, began following the failure of a military coup in its aim to take control of the entire country, and was the outcome of political polarisation in Spain that had already been brewing for several decades before the outbreak of the war. It was seen as the equivalent of Fascist takeovers by Mussolini and Hitler. The war led to the intervention of other countries on both sides, with the Nationalists, or rebels, receiving aid from Fascist Italy and Nazi Germany, whilst the Republicans were helped by the Soviet Union and the International Brigades, which was made up of European and American volunteers. Regarding the origins of the Spanish Civil War, there were long- and short-term causes that were to blame for this ruthless conflict. This essay will discuss that whilst political issues were the main causes, long- and short-term, there were also other factors, especially when taking the long-term causes into consideration. Officially, the Spanish Civil War began on July 17th, 1936, only four days after the murder of Jose Calvo Sotelo, a Spanish politician and jurist. The assassination followed the victory of the Popular Front government in the general election on Febrary 16th 1936, in which Azaña was restored to power with a liberal but not radical manifesto. This event was seen as both a pursuit to keep democracy and peace and also an operation of extremist communism, highlighting the extent to which Spain was polarised at the time. Furthermore, this threw the Spanish Confederation of Autonomous Rights (Confederación Española de Derechas Autónomas), or CEDA into a pit of disruption, which was unusual, as usually the CEDA itself was the one at the root of chaos subsequent to its formation in February 1933, shortly after Azaña lost much of the support he once had. For example, it was what sparked the Asturias rising in October 1934, when Catalonia attempted to declare independence, however the act of freedom was suspended after the uprising of the Asturian miners against the right-wing government. Going back a decade, Spain was already suffering, as the country had no resistance to the coup of General Primo de Rivera, who established an authoritarian right-wing regime to solve Spain’s problems. Due to this, he was able to rule ruthlessly for seven years (1923-30) and undermine the legitimacy of the monarchy before his resignation in 1930. Additionally, Spain had twelve unsuccessful governments between the years 1918-1923, further presenting the political instability and struggles between periods of conservatism and liberalism. Moreover, extremists in Spain believed that the country’s problems stemmed from long-term issues that could only be fixed by war, in particular after the establishment of the Second Republic in April 1931. This was also the Republican movement that overthrew Alfonso XIII. These long-term issues were not also political, but also industrial, economic, and army-related. Many of the short-term causes of the Spanish Civil derive from there being ‘Two Spains’ at the time, however this polarisation began long before the war ever broke out. There was the Spanish Socialist Party (PSOE) and VGT controlling urban areas, but the Communist Party, Socialists, and Liberals were also present in Spain, all of which were divided over reforms, which could’ve been the lead up to Spain failing to keep a stable government closer to the start of the war. There were an abundance of different political issues, including corrupt or rigged elections, the church using its wealth to gain political and social influence, and power being held mostly by the wealthy oligarchs of society. In addition, there were struggles between the centralist state and Catalona and the Basque Provinces after Primo de Rivera took  back Catalonia’s self-governing rights. The effects of WWI, the Russian Revolution, and the final loss of the Spanish empire in 1898 also had a further effect on Spain that could have been somewhat at fault for the Spanish Civil War, destroying much of Spain’s political strength. Aside from political injustices and problems, Spain was also faced with industrial issues long before the war. There was a huge need for modernisation and reform, as industrial workers struggled with low wages, long working hours, poor working conditions and housing, and more. Agriculture was Spain’s main source of economy and employment, but it did not provide enough food, as work was seasonal. Furthermore, the agricultural system was feudalistic, with anarchists advocating for the redistribution of land. The expansion of any agricultural land was also limited by poverty. For all of the reasons mentioned above, it is understandable why the country was so divided, not only over politics but also industry (in this case, mainly agriculture), and also the economy. Moreover, there were several different origins of economic issues that contributed to the long-term causes of the Spanish Civil War. The post WWI depression was one of them, as well as the end of the Moroccan war in 1924, which put Spain in severe debt. The Church was also an issue, as it controlled education and certain important elements of the economy, however only really supported the upper classes, therefore was resented by the poor peasants. They saw the Church as a part of the wealthy classes that oppressed them, forbidding them to ever attempt to move up in the economic and social hierarchy. Spain was completely segregated, with land being owned by the ‘Grandees’ (Spanish nobility) in the south, and peasants owning insufficient land in the north who were supported by the anarchists. In the north, there were also riots which were repressed by the Civil Guard, but still even decades before the war there was violence and division within the country. The Spanish army was seen as a protector of the nation that intervened in politics if a crisis ever were to occur. However, it was unpopular due to its brutal reputation and heavy taxes, and also ineffective, as shown by the loss of the Spanish empire and struggle to keep control of Morocco between 1906-26. Knowing this, it can be understood why the civil war escalated in Spain, as it is unlikely that it would be able to keep control of its own population if it could not control Morocco’s, which has always been much smaller. In addition, the army was too big, with too many officers, and there was a desperate need for reform as with too many officers, it is difficult to keep order within the army. Similarly to the Church’s preference to the upper class, upper and middle class dominated officer corps and were generally conservative, so the lower class and those who were not conservative were completely excluded. To conclude, although it was technically the assassination of Jose Calvo Sotelo and other significant events shortly before that that caused the Spanish Civil War, one cannot forget the political, industrial, and economic issues that Spain had been struggling with long before such events, which may have not even happened if such problems had been resolved earlier. If such had been successful, Spain would most likely no longer have been polarised, meaning that no civil war would’ve ever broken out. For these reasons, whilst the short-term causes of the Spanish Civil War are obviously significant to the reasons as to why the war started, these would not have arisen without the long-term problems Spain had already been faced with.  Works Cited Untitled, https://nisis.weebly.com/uploads/1/0/2/9/10295486/causes_of_scw.pdf. Accessed 11 December 2022. Byrne, Justin. “Spanish Socialist Workers' Party.” Wikipedia, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spanish_Socialist_Workers%27_Party. Accessed 11 December 2022. “History- Spain Flashcards.” Quizlet, https://quizlet.com/54704251/history-spain-flash-cards/. Accessed 11 December 2022. “The Long Term and Short Term Causes of the Spanish Civil War.” Prezi, https://prezi.com/8cqpyl_llaf4/the-long-term-and-short-term-causes-of-the-spanish-civil-war/. Accessed 11 December 2022. “Spanish Civil War | Holocaust Encyclopedia.” Holocaust Encyclopedia, https://encyclopedia.ushmm.org/content/en/article/spanish-civil-war. Accessed 11 December 2022. Woodcock, George. “Spanish Civil War | Definition, Causes, Summary, & Facts.” Encyclopedia Britannica, published 8 November 2022, https://www.britannica.com/event/Spanish-Civil-War. Accessed 11 December 2022.      

 Paper 2: Examine the long- and short-term causes of one 20th-century war. As a Spaniard, the Spanish Civil War of 1936–1939 is deeply ingrained into my history, as it played an instrumental role in forming the Spain that I know today. Due to the extent of foreign involvement and the supposed direct confrontation between communism and fascism, the Spanish Civil War, which saw a conservative, monarchist, Catholic Nationalist faction overthrow a Republic ruled by communists, socialists, and anarcho-syndicalists, is often touted as the "dress rehearsal for World War II", and, while this may or may not be true, its profound effect on Spain and the world is undeniable. However, in order to properly understand this complex and influential conflict, it is crucial to examine the causes of the Spanish Civil War, both in the long-term and the short-term. In this essay, I will argue that the long-term processes of the Spanish Empire's decline and the class struggle within Spain, combined with short-term causes including the Great Depression, the left-wing government's reforms, and the assassination of José Calvo Sotelo, led to the outbreak of civil war in Spain, and that fascism was not a key factor. In the long-term, the Spanish Civil War was caused by the gradual decline of the Spanish Empire and the subsequent surplus of military officers concentrated in the Army of Africa. Having been the first empire known as "the empire on which the sun never sets" and having brought Catholicism to the New World, the Spanish Empire's decline, initiated by the Spanish American wars of independence in the early 19th century, was particularly humiliating for Spain, a once proud and powerful nation that saw itself reduced to a rump state. The final blow was delivered by the Spanish–American War of 1898, which resulted in Spain's loss of Cuba, Puerto Rico, Guam, and the Philippines. This was a key turning point, as, after the Spanish–American War, the considerable number of military officers that had been necessary to control a colonial empire but were now superfluous returned to Spain, eventually becoming primarily concentrated in Spanish Morocco as part of the Army of Africa. Given that these military officers were, for the most part, conservative, monarchist, and devoutly Catholic, this concentration of military personnel in Spanish Morocco later served as a powerful basis for a Nationalist uprising against the Popular Front government, which many in the military saw as betraying everything Spain stood for, especially in terms of religion. On the other hand, with regards to the Republicans, it can be argued that the Second Spanish Republic's creation and controversial reforms, which were a short-term catalyst of the Spanish Civil War, were caused by the long-term process of the class struggle within Spain. For centuries, Spain had, much like most of its European contemporaries, been a deeply hierarchical society, with the lavish life of the aristocracy starkly contrasting the horrendous standards of living that the peasants were subjected to. In fact, Antony Beevor introduces his well-known book The Spanish Civil War by using an image of Alfonso XIII, King of Spain until 1931, being pushed forwards in his broken automobile by peasants, to illustrate the extent of the divide between social classes in Spain and the effect this had on the sentiment of the populace. This is a valid representation of Spanish society at the time, seeing as the income share of the top 0.01 percent of the population was around 1.5 percent in the early 1930s, compared to around 0.8 percent in 2005. By the 1930s, Spain's working class population had endured centuries of hardship while watching the monarchs indulge in luxuries – it is not surprising that they embraced the opportunity for change and  helped bring about the Second Spanish Republic. By doing so, they plunged Spain into the period of instability that would culminate in the Spanish Civil War. While the Spanish Empire's decline and the class struggle within Spain made civil war possible, it is vital to consider the short-term causes that triggered the Spanish Civil War. One of these was the Great Depression, which led the Spanish economy to drop 20 percent below its usual trend in gross domestic product (GDP) throughout the 1930s. When economic downturn first occurred in 1929 and the value of the Spanish peseta fell, the Spanish military's grievances with dictator Miguel Primo de Rivera grew, causing King Alfonso XIII to withdraw his support for Primo de Rivera, who resigned on January 28, 1930. This proved to be detrimental, as Primo de Rivera's successor, Dámaso Berenguer, was unable to consolidate power and, on April 14, 1931, the Second Spanish Republic was proclaimed and Alfonso XIII left Spain as a result of the 1931 Spanish local elections, which were perceived as a plebiscite on the monarchy of Alfonso XIII. The Great Depression had ended a period of relative stability under Primo de Rivera and ushered in the Second Spanish Republic, which further divided Spain politically and whose radical reforms where another short-term cause of the Spanish Civil War. The reforms enacted by the left-wing government of Manuel Azaña, who became prime minister of Spain on October 14, 1931, included granting more autonomy to Catalonia and the Basque Country, separating the Church from the state, ending religious education in schools, compulsorily retiring many military officers, nationalizing large estates which were mostly owned by the Church, and attempting to increase the proletariat's wages. While these changes were welcomed by most city-dwelling young people and women, the Spanish land and business owners, as well as the military and the Church, were furious. The military was especially fearful, as it saw the government's crackdown on military officers as an existential threat. Although a right-wing government was able to take power in the 1933 elections, the Popular Front, a coalition of communists, socialists, and anarcho-syndicalists, among others, took power in 1936, at which point political division in Spain became even more evident. As stated by José María Gil Robles, leader of CEDA, a right-wing party, in a parliamentary session on June 17, 1936, the Republicans had, since February 1, 1936, destroyed 160 churches, murdered 296 people, and assaulted 83 newspapers. Acts like these are a perfect example as to why several high-ranking military officers led by General Emilio Mola had been plotting to overthrow the Republican government since April 1936. Those in the military who were still hesitant or thought a coup lacked justification were finally convinced on July 13, 1936, when José Calvo Sotelo, a prominent conservative, monarchist member of the Congress of Deputies (the lower house of Spanish parliament), was murdered by socialist militiamen. This assassination represented the final catalyst for a civil conflict in Spain that had been brewing for months, if not years, and it also confirmed the Nationalists' view that they were fighting a godless, terroristic regime. As is expressed in the Spanish saying; "nos acostamos en una monarquía y despertamos en una república" ("we went to bed in a monarchy and woke up in a republic"), Spain was not prepared for nor fully open to the far-reaching changes implemented by the left-wing government in such a short period of time – they were too sudden and too radical to ever be successful, instead becoming a trigger for internal conflict. It is important to note that it is still widely believed that the primary cause of the Spanish Civil War was fascism, following in the path of Germany and Italy. For example, Paul Preston, author  of some of the most critically acclaimed books on the Spanish Civil War, points to the rise of Spanish fascist movements such as the Falange as a key factor in the country's descent into conflict. However, this is easily disproven by the fact that the Falange only received 0.07 percent of the vote in the 1936 Spanish general election, demonstrating that the vast majority of the Nationalist faction did not align itself with fascism. It is also difficult to broadly categorize the Nationalists in Spain as fascists, seeing as they did not really have a "us and them" doctrine, were mainly a reactionary movement wishing to preserve the status quo, and were made up of many different groups with varying ideologies. While Preston may be right in saying that the Falange contributed to the Spanish Civil War, labeling the Falange a "key factor" is an exaggeration, which must be taken into account when examining the causes of the Spanish Civil War. In summation, it is clear that the long-term processes of the Spanish Empire's decline and the class struggle within Spain laid the foundations for the Spanish Civil War, which was triggered in the short-term by the Great Depression, the left-wing government's reforms, and the assassination of José Calvo Sotelo. The individual events contained in each of these causes may have, when viewed on their own, seemed unlikely to unleash a conflict that ended up killing around half a million people, which indicates the importance of fully considering all implications of historical events. Thus, after examining the long- and short-term causes, one can conclude that the Spanish Civil War, much like many other conflicts, began long before the first bullet was fired.

Example III: Despite the complexities of the Spanish Civil War, its causes can be understood by simply examining Pablo Picasso’s famous painting: “Guernica”. In the painting, the deformed bull symbolizes Spain and its internal destruction as a result of growing ideological differences, whereas the physical devastation of the town highlights the impact of external factors in the war. Therefore, this essay will examine the role of ideological factors within Spain and socio-economic factors originating from foreign events and how they led to civil war. When looking at “Guernica”, it is clear that the distorted bull represents the way Spain was being torn apart by its internal ideological differences. In the short-term, this was caused by increasingly extremist ideas in both left- and right-wing parties, which led to growing civil unrest with the election of every government between the years of 1931 and 1936. This can be seen with the election of the Second Republic of 1931, which banned all support of the monarchy and began the nationalization of large estates, leading to an increasing number of strikes, protests and violence in the streets. Two years later, the right-wing coalition CEDA canceled most of these reforms, but labor strikes did not cease.1 This continuing civil unrest is evidence of Spaniards’ seemingly uncompromising stance regarding their ideological differences, and the unrelenting violence that resulted. This is clearly reflected in the words of French poet Antoine de Saint-Exupéry, “A Civil War is not a war but a sickness. The enemy is within. One fights almost against oneself”.2 This internal conflict can largely be attributed to the spread of extreme left-wing ideologies, which resulted in growing political polarization that would eventually make war inevitable by 1936. One long-term cause of this was the Spanish-American War of 1898, which rid Spain of imperial ideals and shifted political focus towards the country itself.3 This resulted in an increasing need for modernization in politics, eventually leading to the rejection of the monarchy.4 This downfall of monarchist ideals can largely be credited for the political conflicts leading up to the war, as it resulted in the election of the Left Republic in 1931 and the introduction of its extremist reforms. However, the violence that emerged as a result of political conflict cannot entirely be blamed on internal ideological differences in Spain. Here, the Russian Revolution played a crucial role as a long-term cause of the war as it provided an example of a successful revolution for Spain, thus inspiring a long period of violence as a method for political change. The revolution also sparked the ‘trieno bolchevista’ or ‘three Bolshevik years’ in Spain, which saw extreme militancy in the Spanish labor movement.5 Therefore, the increasing demands of trade unions and growing frequency of labor strikes in the period of political polarization of 1931-1936 were not entirely due to ideological differences. Although the destruction of Guernica in Picasso’s painting was the result of foreign involvement during the Civil War, the effects of foreign events could be seen long before the start of the war with the build-up of socio-economic issues in Spain. Increasing poverty in the 1920s can be interpreted as the root of the social division that drove political conflicts throughout the 1930s as it caused a surge in migrations from rural areas to cities, thus accelerating social polarization between ‘la España profunda’ or ‘deep Spain’ and urban areas.6 The cause of this was the First World War and its aftermath, as Spain went from being a source of imports for the fighting countries to a nation facing severe inflation as a result of the recovery of European industry after the war.7 During WWI, the Spanish economy witnessed remarkable economic growth, however, this simply added to the growing division between northern and southern Spain due to their differing industries. This is because northern regions enjoyed substantial industrial expansion, whereas southern and central regions, as well as most of the Levante, underwent an agricultural crisis.8 Directly linked to this is the facilitated appeal of left-wing ideologies in struggling agricultural areas, thus driving the division between North, eventually Nationalist, and Central and Southern, eventually Republican, Spain.9 In the short term, this social polarization was exacerbated by the Great Depression,10 which caused an agricultural crisis due to soaring unemployment rates,11 thus driving landless laborers towards urban areas and increasing the prominence of social division. In conclusion, the Spanish Civil War was the result of growing ideological differences within Spanish politics and the population, as well as the socio-economic effects of external events - as depicted in Pablo Picasso’s “Guernica”. In Picasso’s interpretation of the bombing of the rural town, as in the four decades prior to the Spanish Civil War, the source of destruction was not simply internal conflict but also international circumstances. Works Cited Beevor, Antony. The Battle for Spain: The Spanish Civil War, 1936-1939. Phoenix, 2007. Casanova, Julián. A Short History of the Spanish Civil War. Bloomsbury Academic, 2013. “Cause of the Spanish Civil War and its consequences.” Encyclopedia Britannica, https://www.britannica.com/summary/Spanish-Civil-War. Accessed 10 December 2022. de Ojeda, Jaime. “The Spanish-American War of 1898: a Spanish View - The World of 1898: The Spanish-American War (Hispanic Division.” Library of Congress, https://www.loc.gov/rr/hispanic/1898/ojeda.html. Accessed 10 December 2022.  Evans, Richard J. “The Spanish Civil War 1936-39.” Richard J Evans, https://www.richardjevans.com/lectures/spanish-civil-war-1936-39/. Accessed 10 December 2022. Ponce, Javier. “Spain | International Encyclopedia of the First World War (WW1).” 1914-1918-online. International Encyclopedia of the First World War, 20 March 2015, https://encyclopedia.1914-1918-online.net/article/spain. Accessed 10 December 2022. Preston, Paul. “Spain’s October Revolution and the Rightist Grasp for Power.” Journal of Contemporary History, vol. 10, no. 4, 1975, pp. 555-578. JSTOR. Sánchez, Andrés, et al. “Wartime and Post-war Economies (Spain) | International Encyclopedia of the First World War (WW1).” Encyclopedia 1914-1918, 30 May 2017, https://encyclopedia.1914-1918-online.net/article/wartime_and_post-war_economies_sp ain. Accessed 9 December 2022. “Spanish Civil War maps.” NZHistory, https://nzhistory.govt.nz/media/photo/spanish-civil-war-map. Accessed 10 December 2022. Zoffmann Rodriguez, Arturo. “Lenin in Barcelona: the Russian Revolution and the Spanish trienio bolchevista, 1917–1920.” Slavic Review, vol. 76, no. 3, 2017, pp. 629-636. Cambridge University Press.  

 Examine the long- and short-term causes of one 20th-century war. The Spanish Civil War, spanning from 1936-1939, culminated the polarization of the life and politics in Spain, which arose thanks to a failing government and an economic crisis following the Great Depression. Such brought about much unrest among the Spanish people, leading to impulsive reelections and revolts, eventually bringing about the election of the left wing ‘Frente Popular’ (Popular Front) in February 1936. This was met with discontent by the Nationalist right, where the murder of their political leader, Calvo Sotelo, in July 1936 was the last straw regarding revolution, and soon after war. The following essay will argue that financial (long term) and political (short term) unrest were the predominant causes of the Spanish Civil War, and will further discuss the separation within Spain which amounted to such a War. The long term effects of the depression coupled with the ineffective economic policies in place throughout the early 1930s paved the path to Civil War. The first sign of financial struggle came at the end of Rivera’s reign (1923-1930). Rivera, who came to power as a military dictator in 1923, reformed Spain and rectified its financial struggles, by industrializing a backwards country. Rivera was able to implement many reforms, such as increasing foreign trade by 300%1, but his economical victories came to an end as the depression hit Spain hard in the early months of 1930. The peseta fell drastically against other currencies, and their bad harvest the previous year did not aid the cause whatsoever 2. Exports of iron and oil, which once were higher than ever, now exponentially declined, and working class unemployment was at an all-time high. Rivera found himself stuck in an economic slump, in which he found no escape. Once he lost the backing from the military, public unrest and pressure caused him to resign and hand the regime back to the Monarchy 3. This proved to be pointless, as King Alfonso was unable to do any better than, and was forced to abdicate only one year later. Spain had since become a republic, but governance came and went, as none was able to bounce back from the economic hardship in which the depression had placed them. The working class stared to condemn the republic, and found it no better than the monarchy or dictatorship, as their wages were incredibly low. The left wing government at the time acted quickly to squander any reason for a revolution by implementing a polices such as the  8-hour-day and the Law of Municipal Boundaries, which forbade hired workers who weren’t local to the owner's holdings1. This law caused unemployment to rise further, and brought about more social turmoil. In a desperate attempt to decrease unemployment, they started to regulate the use of machinery, which alienated the landowners, who now had neither people nor machinery to work their fields and factories. The Spanish governance changed constantly, where every new leader reversed changes made by the last, sending Spain into an economic dilemma. This cause great polarity among Spain, as each new government made reforms which aided different classes of people. Strikes and arson were an everyday occurrence, the largest being the Asturian miners revolt of 19341, the first major sign of an impending revolution. The polarity among the Spanish populace thanks to the long term effects of the depression and the failure of the republic to enact useful policies brought about the formation of two extremist parties; the Frente Popular, a group of socialists, anarchists, syndicalist and communists, and the Nationalists, which were made right wing groups such as the Falange. The mass unrest and financial crisis among the working class most definitely led to the regions filled with different social classes to side with different extremists sides. When the Frente Popular took control of the government in the 1936 rigged election, the working class whom which sided with the Nationalists started to revolt, while the middle class sided with the Frente Popular. This bringing about the Civil war in which the country was split between the density of the classes. With the ever-changing governments unable to make financial reforms to reverse the effects of the great depression, Spain spiraled into chaos and division, a breeding ground for Civil War. The short term effect of the constant political change and poor political decisions effectively led to the beginning of the Civil War. The constant changing of the government in the years following up to the war left Spain divided, as with every new regime came new policies, and abolishment of old ones. In 1932 the left wing government under the lead of Azana was in power, they placed law in place which they expected would aid the development of Spain. One of their laws was an attack on the Church, which separated the Church and state by cutting funding and expelling the Jesuits4. Since they were mainly the educators in Spain, they now had a huge crisis in terms of teachers and education, which made the middle class and lower classes very  uneasy. They also started nationalizing large estates, meaning that landowners were losing land which they rightfully owned to the state. Bringing about more unrest, and fueling protests and strikes. In 1933, the government set fire to houses in a village known as the Casas Viejas Incident, which lost them the support of the working class, causing the Right winged CEDA party to win the November 1933 general elections1. But, they were denied the house by the Left republicans, who tried to cancel the votes and instead brought the RRP to power.3 Such brought major unrest to the streets of Spain, as voters felt that their right was being taken away from them, and they such corruption should be punished. After almost a year of protests and violence in the streets, CEDA was given the seats in the Senate which they deserved in hopes that the revolutionary ideas would wash away. But then a revolt by the Asturian miners led to a fierce battle in which the Spanish military squandered the revolution, leading to hatred from the working class. The CEDA once in power, then reversed lots of Azana’s policies, canceling the reforms of the new Catalan government, and refusing the Basques their own government. The Basques, who had previously supported the right, now condemned them and switched to the left. By reversing the polices, CEDA effectively stabbed themselves in the back and lost the support of two major regions in Spain5. As the government returned the land to landowners, they became fiercely in favor of the right, and started to abuse the workers. They started firing leftist workers and taunting the workers by telling if they were hungry to “go eat the republic.”[4] In 1935 the RRP came back into power since the CEDA had lost much support with the lower class and the Basque and Catalan regions.1 The RRP experienced not much better, as they failed to appeal to the middle class and once again, an election was called and a new party rose, a culmination of left-wingers, the Frente Popular2. They were not welcomed since they had taken the streets on election day and rigged the ballots. After this, the country rapidly descended into anarchy, as the widely divided people and parties started to form coalitions to take control of Spain. The outright division between the people and the governments into the Nationalist (right wing) and Republicans (left wing) descending into civil war. The short term effect of the poor political decisions by the rapidly changing governments led to a clear segregation between classes, paving a path for coalitions to fight the Civil War.  Although some may argue that the sole reason for the Civil War was due to the short term effect of the murder of Right-wing political leader Jose Calvo Sotelo. After the Frente Popular came to power, their police sent squads to arrest certain political oppositions. When going to arrest Calvo Sotelo, they instead shoot him in the back of the neck1. Such a rash action on the side of the Republicans led to massive reprisals and reactions among other right winged groups. Such an event was a perfect catalyst for a publicly justified coup, and almost undoubtedly, according to Preston Paul, was the sole reason for the uprisings in Spanish held Morocco, marking the beginning of the Civil war6. Although Preston Paul did determine the event which justified the start of the Civil War, he didn’t consider the causes of the event, or any of the prior events which led to the separation of the people of Spain, allowing there to be a Civil War. Helen Graham argues that polarity within Spain was the sole cause of Civil war; and agrees with this essay that without financial and social turmoil, there would not be any reason for there to be “two Spains” as Helen states, which confront each other in 19363. The idea that the murder of Calvo Sotelo was what accelerated Spains Civil War is no stranger; but to say that the Spanish Civil War was improbable without the murder of Sotelo completely ignores the rising tension within the country thanks to the depression and constant change in the Spanish Governance and their policies. It is an undeniable fact that the reasons for which the Civil War had occurred were primarily due to the Political and Finical unrest. To return to the question, both the Long term effect of financial hardship on account of the depression, and the short term effects of the constant political unrest both contributed to the social polarity within Spain, hence bringing about “two Spains” and the contrasting idea in how their country should be ruled. Such forced the hand of political leaders to convene and revolt against the opposing parties, as the end of July 1936 marked the beginning of a 3-year long violent and bloody war preluding the second World War. RRP- Radical Repulican Party CEDA- Confederación Española de Derechas Autónomas   CEDA English-Spanish Confederation of Autonomous Rights  References: 1.Wikipedia. “Spanish Civil War,” December 5, 2022. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spanish_Civil_War#cite_. 2.The Editors of Encyclopedia Britannica. “Spanish Civil War | Definition, Causes, Summary, & Facts.” In Encyclopædia Britannica, January 31, 2019. https://www.britannica.com/event/Spanish-Civil-War. 3. Graham, Helen. The Spanish Civil War : A Very Short Introduction. Oxford ; New York: Oxford University Press, 2005. 4.Mann, Michael. Fascists. Cambridge University Press, 2004, p. 316 5.Wikipedia Contributors. “CEDA.” Wikipedia. Wikimedia Foundation, December 17, 2019. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CEDA. 6.Preston, Paul, and Paul 1946- Preston. The Spanish Civil War : Reaction, Revolution and Revenge. New York: W.W. Norton & Co, 2007.     

 Long Term and Short Term Causes of The Spanish Civil War The Spanish Civil War between the years 1936 and 1939 was one of the most brutal civil wars in history, between the Nationalists, the army and the upper-classes, and Republicans, the lower and middle-classes, with a number of approximately 500,000 lives lost. People wondered what could have led to such a brutal civil war, whether it was the occurrence of specific events such as “The Popular Front” or if there were other long term causes as well that made the war inevitable by the time it happened. In his book “The Battle for Spain'', Antony Beevor raised the question “Was there ever a people whose leaders were as truly their enemies as this one?” coming up with the conclusion that it was the leaders of Spain that allowed such destruction to be brought upon their own country. In this essay, I will support Antony Beevor’s argument by investigating the long and short term causes of The Spanish Civil War. The Spanish Civil War was the result of many long term causes leading the country into division and chaos. Throughout the 19th century until the civil war, Spain dealt with poverty due to an agriculturally based economy supported by Goerge Orwell’s description, “The ordinary class-division of society had disappeared to an extent that is almost unthinkable in the money — tainted air of England; there was no one there except the peasants and ourselves, and no one owned anyone else as his master.”. More than half of the population being peasants and uneducated created an enormous gap between the upper and lower classes. This extreme lack of economical balance within Spain sparked hatred between the two classes as the division it caused left no possibility for mutual empathy or respect that the two sides should have treated each other with. This supports the idea that the Nationalists were too satisfied with their positions of power and wealth that they were selfish enough to disregard the poverty the rest of the country was drowning in. They found it unacceptable to replace conservative elements of the government because it wasn’t going to benefit them like it would the Republicans. Thus with clearly being more powerful than the Republicans, the 1930’s Depression the economic imbalance made way to, became a huge threat to The Republic as they faced losing the support of the working class, motivating the Nationalists to rebel against The Republic as it showed signs of instability. Referring back to Antony Beevor’s argument, the leaders of Spain had differing views on what action to take even though they were responsible for the economic collapse of the country after the failed attempt for the Industrial Revolution. Beevor further argues that “The Spanish Civil War has so often been portrayed as a clash between left and right, but this is a misleading simplification. Two other axes of conflict emerged: state centralism against regional independence and authoritarianism against the freedom of the individual.” This argument was valid and supported as the role that regions played in the causes of The Spanish Civil War was too large to disregard. There was great tension between the centralist state and Catalonia and the Basque regions with both provinces searching for independence and decentralization, having their own languages, economies, cultures and churches. When Primo de Rivera took back the self-governing rights of Catalonia, separatist forces began supporting the Republican movement that replaced Alfonso XIII, the King of Spain, in 1931. Their support  upset the Nationalists because Alfonso was closely associated with the military, occasionally introducing himself as the ‘soldier-king’. This became a motive for the Nationalists to rebel against the Republic and punish the Catalans which they did achieve after Franco gained control over Spain. However, these reasons are too simplistic to unleash the country into such bloody chaos. There were two other long term causes that led to the war; The army and The Catholic Church. The Catholic Church, due to its wealth, was able to gain influence over the population and therefore became a major power that allied with the Nationalists. Due to their control over the education and other public life elements, Republicans had already begun disliking The Catholic Church and had made attempts at removing their influence that injected opposing views towards modernization and libreal forces. Additionally, the upper-classes funded The Church so that they could continue to spread religious beliefs that restricted the people’s freedom of choice over their own lives in a means of securing their positions of power and thus having easy access to reaching their goal of overthrowing the Republic with the use of manipulation. The Catholic Church, therefore, allied itself with the Nationalists due to the endless support they received from aristocrats and the Nationalists began taking advantage of the widespread influence their new allies had in order to gain more allies. When it became clear that The Church was supporting the upper-classes, lower-classes’ resentment increased. It led to protests that caused more hostility between the two groups. The Spanish Army, on the other hand, was politically powerful due to their association with Alfonso XIII, although proved themselves ineffective on the battlefield with the Loss of the Spanish Empire in the 19th century. This was an ironic situation as it was proved in many instances, for example the Ottoman Army’s involvement with the Empire’s politics leading to the 31 March Incident in April 1909, a political crisis that became one of the reasons for the Empire’s downfall, that an army’s involvement with politics always resulted in negative outcomes. The Republic, due to this very reason, were bothered by their involvement and wanted to remove The Spanish Army from politics. This aggravated the army who already had a reputation for being cruel and savage, and because they were traditional and possessed conservative beliefs due to their faith towards the Catholic Church, they found it beneficial to take a stand with the Nationalists. The size of the army was a huge advantage that the Nationalists had gained through this alliance, a large number of people joining Franco. The Catholic Church and the Spanish Army both led to the formation of the two groups, once again supporting Beevor’s argument with the Church being Spain’s religious leaders and the army’s association with the King of Spain, Alfonso. Although, the real trigger that set the civil war into motion was one of the short term causes, political polarization. Between the years 1931 and 1936, the population was divided due to the long term issues. Extremists admitted that they believed that war was the only solution to solve Spain’s problems. Thus this foreshadowed the brutal civil war as there was now a portion of the Spanish people with an undeniable thirst for bloodshed. After Alfonso’s resignation, The Left Republic came to power in April 1931 until November 1933. They shared the views of the Republicans and made an attempt at modernizing Spain. Manuel Azana became president and took action to fix the long term issues that had been causing issues within the country such as restricting the Church’s power and taking an anti-army approach by closing down military  academies. Every choice that the Left Republic made was viewed as an attack towards the Right Wing even though it can be deduced that they did not intentionally attack the Nationalists but were making a genuine effort to support the lower-class people of Spain to rescue the country from its initial state at the time. From 1933 to 1936, however, the Right Republic took over and led the country in an exactly opposite direction than the way that the Left Republic had begun taking it. The hostility of Right Republicans and the violence behind the decisions they took was revealed quickly when the largest party CEDA turned into ‘a group of war ministers’. These two years were branded as the ‘black years’ due to the systematic reversal that occurred, the Church once again gaining authority over the country, and Catalonia being stripped away from its independence despite how much they tried to resist. This was a backwards step for the modernization of Spain, however it ensured the satisfaction of the upper-class Nationalists. But, in 1936, one of the main triggers for the Spanish Civil War, the Popular Front emerged, a party including a large number of Republicans. The Popular Front was also viewed as the ‘last stand to achieve peace’ within the country or ‘extreme communism’ by following the footsteps of Stalin’s policy in 1935. This angered the Nationalists and the army immediately began planning a coup. This clearly led the country to disaster as the only way the Republicans and the Nationalists interacted with each other was through violent attacks. With all the leaders of each party failing to create a stable government, their actions caused the people to believe that war was the only option they were left with in order to achieve what they wanted. In conclusion, Beevor makes a valid argument by blaming the leaders of Spain for the causes of the Spanish Civil War. The economic crisis in Spain during the 19th century and the role of regions creating a base for the civil war and later on the increase in tension with the army and the Catholic Church’s made the war inevitable and even motivated the Nationalists to the extent that they did not just think it necessary to rebel against the Republic but also desired the violence it brought forth. The use of manipulation by powerful allies such as the Church and the tension between the two parties indeed carved a path that led to a civil war that was unavoidable.

 Examine the long- and short-term causes of one 20th-century war - Spanish Civil War “Spaniards! To all of you who feel holy love for Spain, to all of you who in the ranks of the army and the navy have sworn to serve the fatherland, to those of you who swore to defend it from its enemies with your lives, the nation calls you to defend it.” These powerful words spoken by Francisco Franco, leader of the nationalist forces, demonstrate the passion and intensity only a civil war can inspire in its people. In essence, the Spanish Civil war was a culmination of a multitude of social and political factors that led to the culmination of conflict between factions of the nationalist and republican forces. Various short and long term factors escalated to the point of a bloody and gruesome struggle for power. In this essay, I will discuss three key factors that led to the outbreak of civil war: economically divided classes, the changing position of the Catholic Church and colossal political instability.

Antony Beever himself chose to begin his book (one that encompassed the causes, events and aftermath of the entire war) by accentuating the class differences present in Spain before the conflict began. A harrowing picture is painted as Beever describes how the car of King Alfonso XIII is being pushed by tanned and poorly dressed men, while in the background men in suits merely observe. “Few images better represented the extremes of the social and economic contrasts of Spain in the early part of the 20th century”. This class divide is significant as uprisings and revolutions are often led by the working class - and this one was no different. As Spain was a mainly agrarian society, a large amount of the lower classes were made up of farmers as well as other industry workers, who felt as though they deserved better treatment. In the aftermath of WW1, inflation hit these workers particularly hard as salaries increased by a mere 25% while prices doubled between 1913 and 1918. This was a factor that led to the mass joining of leftist union groups such as the UGT and CNT, whose members were to partake in acts of violence leading up to, and during, the civil war. Furthermore, the events in Spain may have been partly attributed to what happened in the Russian revolution little over a decade earlier. Russia abolished its monarchy, just as Spain will, and the working class was at the forefront of this revolution as well. The period of 1913 became known as the ‘three years of bolshevism’ and included uprisings in Andalucia and unrest in Barcelona. The formation of the Spanish Communist party followed in 1921, with continued demonstrations in Andalusia and beyond. Communism was also seen in various other parties in Spain, including in the Marxist POUM founded in 1935, as well as various socialist youth groups brought together under communist rule towards the beginning of the civil war. The creation of these various groups, both communist and union centered, created a stronger desire for social change as well as a large group of men that would form part of the fighting base during the three years of war. Economic class divide created strain throughout Spain, whose effects were significant in both the long and short term, and increased the time it took for the nation to progress into civil war.  

Another notable cause, both long and short term, of the civil war was the changing role and power of the Roman Catholic Church. The church had been a formidable influence throughout Spanish history, and formed much of the population’s thought and purpose in unity with the state as early as 1479. With the concordat of 1851, Catholicism became Spain’s ‘only’ religion and had large power in education and the press, as well as extended influence due to high illiteracy rates. However, its great power led to a more prominent abuse of power, and the lower classes specifically had complications due to the ties the church had with the aristocracy because they defended the rights of the higher classes as they provided a significant amount of funding. Resentment towards the church was seen as early as 1909 in the “Semana  Trágica”, which was one of the nation’s first uprisings. Though it was caused by an anti-militaristic mood stirred up by the need for an army in Morocco, the church was a chief target, with 80 of the 112 buildings set fire to being church owned or affiliated. In Beever’s words: “Such symbolic violence was the reaction of a people traumatized by intense superstition”. However, despite the important role of the church being a long-term cause of general resentment and change for the people, its effects have been exaggerated in the short term. Collectively, the right wing nationalists (who emerged victorious in 1939) used public support for the church and the past system to gain followers, which did work for the aristocracy. In fact, the creation of the Catholic party CEDA in 1933 reinforced the fact that there was some lingering belief in this old system. However, the church’s power was declining towards the 1930’s as religious attendance was the lowest of any Christian country - in 1934, less than 20% of Spain’s population was going to mass. Other groups and causes (such as various labor unions and political organizations) attracted the masses on a more significant scale than the church did. While the role of the Catholic church was a significant long term cause of bitterness for the working class, its magnitude in escalating violence in the short term is generally overemphasized.

Lastly, political instability caused in particular by the lasting effects of the monarchy contributed greatly to confusion and polarization that eventually led to the civil war. The monarchy had been in place from the times of King Ferdinand and Isabella, and was dissolved suddenly in 1931 with the creation of the Spanish republic. Despite issues associated with it, namely its close ties with the church, the nationalist party supported and used it as a beacon of familiarity for its members. The Carlist group was centered around the idea of reestablishing the Bourbon dynasty, and the “Renovación Española” or the Spanish renovation movement, was also centered around bringing back monarchic principles - both of which establish a clear presence of support for monarchy. Furthermore, the army, which was conservative in nature, also had close ties with the monarchy and this was one of the reasons for the compulsory retirement of many of its members, causing anger and resentment. Moreover, following a line of unsuccessful coup’s the politically charged assassination of monarchist Calvo Sotelo was a monumental short term cause of the civil war. The lack of response from the leading party of the time, the left’s Popular Front, caused public outrage, also caused by the fact that he was a highly influential leader of the right. The event also played a large role as a catalyst to the unsuccessful coup d’etat of July 1936, which was the beginning of the civil war itself. The monarchy played a significant role in the long and short term causes of the civil war. In all, the significance of the changing role and power of the Catholic church and the monarchy are instrumental to understanding the deep rooted causes of the civil war. Articulately summed up by Antony Beever: ”the trinity of army, monarchy and church, which had originally made the empire, was also to preside over its final collapse”. Both of these factors in combination with the vast class divide in Spanish society created a multitude of short and long term causes of the war - ranging from the social alignment to various political groups to the escalation of violence and assassination of people in power. An understanding of these three instrumental factors allows for a glimpse into the complexity of the causes of the Spanish civil war.

 Examine the long- and short-term causes of one 20th-century war. In 1936, after a series of aggression by the majority communist, socialist and anarchist Republicans under Azana against the conservative, monarchist and fascist Nationalists, CEDA member Sotelo was assassinated on July 12th by the PSOE-controlled Assault Guards which triggered the Nationalists to stage a military coup a couple of days later, triggering the Spanish Civil War. During this Spain, an impoverished terra incognita became an ideological battleground of ‘Fascism against Communism’ for which thousands of foreign young men gave their lives in a combat a mort. This essay will argue that the causes of the Spanish Civil War included the short-term events of the assassination of Sotelo, a prominent socialist member of the Spanish parliament, as well as Azana’s violent crackdown on the Nationalist faction, along with the long-term causes of the internal class-struggle and ideological tensions, and to a lesser extent the early foreign intervention of Germany, Italy, and the USSR. In order to truly make sense of the multi-faceted conflict, one cannot only consider the events of 1936, because these short-term causes were deeply rooted in long-term socio-political issues which had been simmering since the beginning of the hierarchical system way back in the Roman Empire, creating and slowly exacerbating political tensions between the Republicans and Nationalists, causing a growth in popularity and passionate intensity for both, thereby leading to the outbreak of the Spanish Civil War in 1936. By the beginning of the 20th century, the once deeply religious Spanish populace turned their back on the Catholic Church, as the farmers viewed the church as a perpetrator of the monarchy, which oppressed them. The landless poor were effectively treated as slaves at the whim of their landowners, who also effectively owned the militarised Guardia Civil, and would go as far as to shoot unemployed workers scavenging for acorns and wood. In Castiblanco desperate men were arrested for gathering acorns, and near Ciudad Real famished peasants fed on grass. It was also common for labourers to earn 2 pesetas a day and forcibly spend a third of their year in enforced idleness, living less well than their master’s donkeys, as approximately 10,000 families of the 21 million population owned half the country’s cultivable land in the 1910s. This widespread inequality and poverty were key in causing a rapid rise in the popularity of left-wing ideologies, such as the PSOE, whose trade union grew from 8,000 members in 1908 to 200,000 in 1920. This was a clear sign of frustration, as revolutionary thoughts were brewing within the increasingly political impoverished population, some of them became anarchists, this meant that frequent strikes, robbed banks, bombs and political assassinations ensued. As we can clearly see, the proletariat was forced into severe apathy for the system, violent revolutionary thoughts were boiling, and the once clueless population shifted into a period of political disillusionment, where they would ache for an opportunity such as the de Riviera’s death to forcibly reform the nation out of mass poverty. Thus, the antagonism of the proletariat towards the conservative minority and those associated with them soon created a radical polarization in Spain, which finally erupted into open conflict in 1936. Furthermore, it is also crucial to keep in mind the long-term decline of Spanish influence and economy which triggered the rise of conservatism, and led to a climate of fear and repression in Spain when they were in power. Spain was once a great power whose king, Charles V used to say “I speak French to women, Italian to my soldiers, German to my horse and Spanish to God", he also left Spain to his firstborn and  Germany to his half-brother. This was the reason why it was especially humiliating for the conservative population of Spain to witness the once powerful Spain’s loss of all its colonies in the Americas, Carribean, and the Pacific, only being left with its African possessions. This caused immense frustration within the monarchist Spanish military, who is now impotent, without any other colony to conquer or control, making them stuck in, and extremely concentrated in Morrocco. This frustration was almost brought to its limit when the devastating blow of the depression of 1929 caused Spain’s GPP to decline by 30%, almost an imitation of Hitler’s rise to power in Weimar the Weimar Republic, public dissidence of de Rivera significantly increased, so that when he died, his intended successor, Derenque was not able to gain power, and the popular front overthrew the dictatorship, whose policies were anti-clerical, anti-military, anti-oligarchy and anti-education, everything that the Nationalists stood against. They also forced the king, Alfonso XII, to abdicate the throne, never to return. The contribution of these factors to the preexisting political instability was extremely crucial, as it made the military officers resentful towards the Republicans, exacerbating tensions between the two. While the decline of the Spanish Empire and its, it is also crucial to consider the short-term causes of the Spanish Civil War in the 1930s which were the clashes between the Nationalists and Republicans, as well as the assassination of Sotelo. As the Nationalists implemented their vision when they got in power in 1933, they cracked down on opposition groups and individuals using violence and intimidation, as well as the imprisonment and execution of political dissidents, the Republicans did the same in 1931, and 1936. The rise in tensions and left-wing support allowed the republicans to overthrow the monarchy and the military dictatorship of de Riviera in January 1931, this catalysed violent rivalries between the Nationalist factions and Republicans, during the October revolution of 34’ caused by protests against electoral fraud by the socialists, both sides killed 1,500 men, women and children, and burned down 112 religious buildings. This example clearly shows how ideological tensions between the Nationalist factions and Republicans and the polarization of Spain up to 1935 instigated detrimental effects on the population, which over time built up an unbearable amount of hostility, hatred, and contempt between those who took sides, one side wishing to completely crush and eradicate the other. This divide turned Spain from a monarchial, organised nation, to a deeply divided one with both extremes. Knowing what we know now, it is clear that the detrimental conflicts, strikes, and innocent deaths exacerbated the passion of the two sides, increased popularity within their supporters, and aggravated the opposition, increasing hostility and desire to fight and kill marched the deeply divided country into a civil war. Additionally, up to 1936, the Republican military significantly overpowered the Nationalists in manpower, Franco needed to also win the support of as many Civil Guards as possible, as he couldn’t count on the Regulares consisting of inexperienced Moroccans and a mere 8,000 troops of the Legion Espanola to beat the 750,000 manned Ejército Popular de la República. Thankfully, the Popular Front’s abuse of power towards the Nationalists and their assassination of Sotelo 2 days before the coup was his go-head. After the Popular Front coalition’s win in the 1936 general elections, Azana resumed his Premiership amidst socio-economical convulsions between FAI and CEDA. After failing to reconcile and moderate the situation, Azana, in hopes of consolidating his power, attacked the Republicans’ most powerful rival, de Riviera, and forcibly dissolved the Falange, among many other provocative actions. This backfired, as the Falange's membership rose rapidly from 1,000 to 100,000 in July, this pattern repeated itself for the Monarchists and others.  Azana’s open antagonism and the Falange’s desperate actions clearly frustrated the Nationalist factions, causing more and more to become open to the idea of a revolution, and those who have already accepted it, to become more vocal. One of these men was Robles. In July, he gave the Cortes a list of violence that was caused by the popular front, including 269 political murders, 1.200 wounded, 160 churches gutted, and 10 newspaper offices destroyed; Sotelo, an important member of the Renovacion Espanola then followed with a bitter diatribe, passionately and openly threatening a military revolt. A couple of days later, he was shot dead by Assault Guards controlled by the PSOE on July 12th. During Sotelo’s funeral, Renovacion Espanola leader Goicochea promised to “imitate your example, to avenge your death and to save Spain”. This wish manifested 5 days later, when the military rebellion began in Morrocco, marking the beginning of the Spanish Civil War, and a staggering 47% of the Guardia Civil turned to the Nationalist side, giving Franco his last push. As we can see, even though a plan for a coup was already in place ever since the Republicans’ win in January of 1936, the assassination of Calvo Sotelo, the last of its kind before the war, as well as Azana’s open antagony and hostility towards the Nationalists clearly provoked the last indecisive military soldiers to support the Nationalists’ rebellion and was Franco’s last impetus to reclaiming Spain from the hands of Azana. Additionally, the widely believed misconception that foreign intervention in the global war of ‘Fascism against Communism’ caused the Spanish Civil War was largely untrue. Nevertheless, the Spanish Republican army had 750,000 soldiers, 1500 pieces of artillery, 800 tanks and armoured vehicles. El Caudillo wouldn’t have dared to bring his 30,000-manned Army of Africa into Spain simply because of his strong beliefs unless he could muster up a significant backing from foreign powers, more significant than that received by Azana. Luckily for Franco, as early as one month before the coup, Franco went to Hitler for his help, after which 20 cargo planes were immediately flown to Morrocco to the Army of Africa to the mainland. Therefore it was clear to Franco that he would receive the support of the Germans. Additionally, it was also known even before the war started that the Soviet’s Heinkels were no match for the German Messerschmitts as German military technology was far more advanced and cutting-edge. These facts suggest that it was the upcoming severe military edge and initial support that instilled a sense of confidence within Franco and his generals. However, although the nationalists would receive 10,000 troops, 800 aircraft, and 200 tanks from Germany and 70,000–75,000 troops, 750 planes, and 150 tanks from Italy and Germany, as a history student evaluating the causes of an event, one must limit oneself to the perspective of a person experiencing such an event before it happens, put away the power of hindsight. Although knowing what we know now, one would think that if the Nationalists knew the support they would have received, foreign intervention would be the biggest factor influencing their decision to stage a coup. However, the Nationalists knew no such things. Therefore to say that foreign intervention was one of the causes of the Spanish Civil war is an inherently weak argument. One, these impressive provisions were made after the coup on July 15th, meaning Franco couldn’t have been certain that he would have received them. Secondly, although it is also undeniable that Mussolini definitely helped Franco, these provisions wouldn’t arrive until his first bombing of Madrid in September 3rd, and even though Mussolini started planning the coup along with Sanjurjo, who was supposed to be the new Caudillo of Spain since January, his sudden death in July and the lack of communication of Mussolini and Franco up until then meant that il Duce didn’t trust  Franco. He didn’t even fully decide to support Franco until the French and British mistakenly signed the non-intervention agreement, which he and Hitler were more than willing to break, guaranteeing the victory of the Nationalists, as the Republicans would then receive minimal support. While Germany’s initial support and their technological advancement helped provide some confidence to the Nationalists, it is clear that foreign support, in fact, didn’t make the great impact that it is widely acknowledged to have in terms of causing the Spanish Civil War, as it was still unclear whether or not Franco would receive the full support of Hitler, or even Mussolini at all. The long-term ideological tensions in Spain since 1876, as well as the short-term factors of an imbalance of foreign support, and the Republican’s public antagonism and abuse of power towards the Nationalists all contributed to the Spanish Civil War. The Spanish population’s long-term ideological tensions caused a polarisation of Spain. They exacerbated tensions between the Republicans and Nationalists, setting the stage for a civil war. At the same time, the short-term antagonism of the Republicans towards the Nationalists and their assassination of Azana was the most important factor in triggering the coup d’etat. To a lesser extent, Germany’s minimal support at the beginning of the coup and its technological superiority to the USSR also influenced the coup, however far less than it was imagined to be. Although this makes us wonder, which of these factors was responsible for turning the coup into a devastating 3-year-long civil war.

Spanish Civil War

We found 6 free papers on Spanish Civil War

Essay examples, the great gatsby, f. scott fitzgerald idealized women.

Over the last decades, the role of women has dramatically changed through taking on responsibilities outside the home, improving social, economic, and health issues, which was once only presented as a man’s job. In the novel, The Great Gatsby, F. Scott Fitzgerald idealized women through stereotypes perceived in the roaring 1920s. By including the female…

The Spanish Civil and Nationalists

The Spanish Civil war induced anomalous distress and torture to millions of Spaniards during the tedious conflict. This essay will discuss some of the origins of the dispute, some of its characteristics and those of the revolutions that concurred throughout as well as Franco’s role and the impact he had on the warfare. The author’s…

Military Revolt Against the Republican Government of Spain

Spanish Civil War(193639), military revolt against the Republican government of Spain, supported by conservative elements within the country. When an initial military coup failed to win control of the entire country, a bloody civil war ensued, fought with great ferocity on both sides. The Nationalists, as the rebels were called, received aid from fascist Italy…

Franco’s Victory in the Spanish Civil War Exaggerated?

The war increased tensions in the lead-up to World War II and was largely seen as a possible war by proxy between the Communist Soviet Union and the Fascist Axis of Fascist Italy and Nazi Germany while giving the Nazis the chance to practice using the new Luftwaffe planes. This study will seek to answer…

Hemingway’s Fight Against Fascism in Spain

Ernest Hemingway

Hemingway’s literature about the Spanish civil war, like most other historical fiction, provides us with a record of the time. However, it is less significant as a record than as meditation on the problems of war writing and expatriate involvement. By historical standards, the war was short, but it was by far one of the most complex wars and at times, complex to…

Pan’s Labyrinth Symbolic Analysis

Destruction, chaos, violence and death along with numerous other tragedies are the results from War. The film Pan’s Labyrinth, by writer/director Guillermo Del Toro, depicts a story of hero’s quest in a time of disarray. The film is based in 1944, about a princess’ journey to return home. She came from an underworld, escaping to…

Frequently Asked Questions about Spanish Civil War

Don't hesitate to contact us. We are ready to help you 24/7

Hi, my name is Amy 👋

In case you can't find a relevant example, our professional writers are ready to help you write a unique paper. Just talk to our smart assistant Amy and she'll connect you with the best match.

Spanish Civil War

Spain is a country in Europe that experienced the horrific effects of a civil war. The war lasted for years, with thousands of lives lost and it took Spain decades to recover from the consequences of these events that took place during the middle of the 20th century. In the early 1930s, a miniscule republic emerged in the country of Spain. At this time most of Europe was already a republic, but this was Spains first attempt at this. Spain had always been a monarchy since before medieval times. It was the last monarchy in a major European nation.

In Spain the failure of the wars in Africa caused an uprising from the military followed by resistance from the Republic that wanted to crush any ambitions of the leader of Nationalists, General Franco whom wanted to seize power. In 1936, the Spanish Army, stationed in Morocco under the leadership of fascist General Francisco Franco, finally rebelled against the new republic. The nationalists/fascist powers had the support of Hitler and Mussolini , while Stalin supported the Republic cause. The Spanish Civil War set the stage for the biggest war humanity had ever have to face in World War II.

By comparing the political situation during the war , the various reasons that led to it, and the political influence from outside political forces, we can see the devastation of this tragic war. The end of the 19th century marked the first time Spain had suffered such a humiliating loss. A one time colony ruled by a king, the Spaniards saw most of its overseas land disappear. In the Spanish American War of 1898, Spain was forced to leave Cuba, Puerto Rico and the Philippines. [1] At that time it was unprecedented for Spain to lose a war to a former colony.

This embarrassing defeat was the first sign of political instability in Spain exposing not only the military but also the political and governmental fragility. Internal problems appeared as well in the beginning of the 20th century . Catalonian and Basque separatist movements challenged the domination of the Spanish government in Madrid[2]. The growing support of these two movements combined with the political instability and social disapproval of King Alfonso XIIIs actions, General Primo de Rivera seized power.

Rivera had maintained a military dictatorship between 1923 and 1930 and focused on turning Spain around by having it catch up to the other European powerhouses of that era. However, he wasnt successful and left office when he received notice that the garrisons were against him. [3] But most significant of Riveras tenure was that it paved way for a new type of government in Spain in which the general seemed to favour, which was a fascist military regime.

Although the Second Spanish Republic was established in 1931 through a coalition between the socialists and republicans, the situation in Spain did not improve, this lead to the infamous coup detat of July 17, 1936 by the forces of General Francisco Franco (1892-1975). Even before that the Spanish countryside witnesses naked socialist conflict throughout the Republican era. Three main strands are essential in understanding the struggle of the Spanish Civil War: the general strike, the regional revolt in Catalonia, a northwest province of Spain, and the revolutionary commune in the Asturias.

The general strike was a total failure; it was supposed to create an alliance between the left wing of the Socialists and the several small Marxist parties in Spain. However, it only represented the sheer failure of the working class leadership. In Catalonia the reaction took the form of a regional uprising against the central government. The Catalan government was threatened by the rise of the Fascist movement and on October 5 the Madrid government had declared a national emergency to deal with the general strike. However, the Catalan rising was suppressed with a minimum bloodshed.

The truly grave events occurred in the northern mining province of Asturias. Socialists, Communists, anarchists and Trotskyites managed to unify against the threat of Fascism. On October 5 Asturian miners attacked several Civil Guards and thereafter marched to the main provincial capital of Oviedo where they were met by Moorish and Foreign Legions led by General Franco. The Asturian rising had challenged the entire basis of the parliamentary Republic, and the government suppressed the uprising with troops whom the Spaniards considered savages and foreigners.

Catalan and Basque governments were suspended on the grounds that their political conflicts amounted to a direct attack on the Republic of Spain. It was the ultimate battle between the Republican forces and those of the Nationalists led by Franco. The Spanish Civil war is more complex that than a simply a battle between fascists and republicans or socialists. First, the war might be described as a revolution rather than a civil war. The popular front was mostly made up of leftist worker groups, which include the communists, socialists, and Anarchists, rather than republicans.

These groups each had different agendas for Spain. The communists (P. S. U. C. ), backed by Russia, wanted to set up a centralized communist government, like the one in Russia. The socialists (P. O. U. M) wanted to set up a worked controlled government with the influence of Russia. While the Anarchists (C. N. T. ), also know as the Anarcho-syndicalists, wanted to establish a decentralized workers government. Likewise, Franco’s collation was not completely unified. He was backed by rich landowners, which wanted to return to feudal Spain, Spanish Fascists, which wanted a Fascist Spain, and the military.

In addition, international politics had considerable influence over the Spanish Civil War. The final result of the war is a familiar one. Francos forces were successful, and the General declared that the war had ended on April 1st 1939. Turning over to the political infrastructure of the war, it was clear that the Spanish Civil War served as a model for the events that were to take place in the Second World War. It was a battle not only for political supremacy in Spain, but also of two political ideologies that were to change the history of Europe forever and the world forever.

On one side Francos fascist regime had the full support from the beginning of the war of Adolf Hitler from Germany as well as from Italys dictator , Benito Mussolini. On the other side, although the help came later, the Republicans got some support from Russias Joseph Stalin . In the eyes of European leaders it was the battle of fascism versus communism and the eyes of Europe were on Spain. One of the most famous pictures of General Franco, is the one of him on his desk, while the Fuhrer, is clearly visible in the background.

His strong feelings towards Hitler were well known , and Hitlers support was tremendous to his ultimate goal. Hitlers assistance came several days after the outbreak of the war, when Franco sent a German businessman, who lived in Spanish Morocco, and the local Nazi leader to Germany to request planes and other support. [4] The Germans, along with the Italians, were quick to respond. Hitlers Junker Ju-52 transport planes were responsible for airlifting Francos elite troops across the straits of Gibraltar, marking the beginning of the war on mainland Spain[5].

Hitler did not greatly exaggerate when he said in 1942 that Franco ought to erect a monument to the glory of the Junkers. It is this aircraft that the Spanish Revolution has to thank for its victory. [6] Hitler viewed Spain as an important cornerstone in his long-term goal of fascism dominating the European continent, and with Germany and Italy under fascist rule , one only has to look at a European map to realise the major importance of countries such a Spain, falling into fascist hands and aliening themselves with the German cause.

Germany supported fascist Spain for several reasons. Adolf Hitler , dictator of Germany, feared the spread of communism with the statement, “There is a danger of the Reds taking power in Spain. It is not my intention to let this happen”. Germany was on the brink of starting World War II and an ally in Spain would be very valuable to their goal of world conquest. Germany used the Spanish Civil War as a training ground for its new weapons and tactics in preparation for World War II. The most gruesome example of Germany’s use of Spain for training was the bombing of Guernica.

Guernica was a small town in northern Spain with fewer than seven thousand residents. It served no strategic purpose and was harmless to Germany. On April 26, 1937, German bombers dropped incendiary (fire-starting) bombs on Guernica for several hours completely decimating the town. The number of troops that were sent to the Civil War underlies this importance. Italy supported fascist Spain for the same reasons as Germany. Italy, a fascist state under dictator Benito Mussolini, wanted to ensure that Spain became a fascist ally.

Mussolini, like Hitler, also feared the spread of communism. Italy, like Germany, used Spain as a training ground for its new weaponry in preparation for World War II. Hitler, besides the aerial support, had sent thousands of troops and Mussolini between December 1936 to February 1937 alone, had sent to Franco between 40,000 and 50,000 troops. [7] Turning over to the international support of the Spanish Civil War, even though Franco did have the military support from Germany due to the common political ideology the two sides shared, the same cant be said for the side of the Republic.

France and Britain, the two countries that the Republic seemed to look to for support, opted not to help. The principal aim of both countries was to keep the Spanish Civil War from becoming a general European war. There are several reasons why Britain, France and United States did not intervene in this war. First of all, with the First World War still in everybodys mind a Non-Intervention Pact was signed on August 2, 1936. Introduced by France, it was signed by the five major European Nations of France, Britain, Germany, Italy, and Russia.

The purpose of this pact was to contain the war within Spain by prohibiting the member nations from supplying materials of war to either side of the conflict. In spite of this pact only Britain and France abided to the agreement. Britain was especially determined to improve relations with Germany and Italy while at the same time maintaining the traditional alliance between them and Portugal,[8] rather than risk entering the war. On August 8, 1936, France closed its border with Spain to materials of war and thus deprived the Spanish Republic to its right under international law to purchase arms for self-defence.

Joseph Stalin however, saw this civil war, as something more than just an internal conflict . He viewed this as a military and ideological expansion of Hitlers regime in the rest of Europe, and made sure to act on it quickly. Russia sent the most aid to the republic but most of it was confiscated by the French at the border. Train loads of war supplies, airplane parts, artillery, and ammunition, mostly Russian, bound for the republic, were held up at the French border. Stalin sent thousand there, and thousands were the number of volunteers that flocked Spain from different countries, such as Britain and France.

By March 1937, 35,000 foreigners supported the Republic cause,[9] among them the great novelist George Orwell , whose Homage to Catalonia is an account of his services on the loyalist side[10]. Orwell quickly leans the diverging ideologies of the many groups in the Popular Front have lead to serious tensions and even violent conflict. For example, while Orwell is on leave from the front in Barcelona riots erupt after the Comminutes storm the Anarchist run telephone company. During the next few days that follow there is bitter fight between groups that are supposedly on the same side.

Communists, Socialists, and Anarchists, all members of the Popular Front, ware shooting at each other. As the war progress the divisions become more defined. By the end of the book, the P. O. U. M is declared illegal and Socialists and Anarchists are being rounded up and jailed. Luckily Orwell, with aid of British consulate, is able escape to France and eventually back to England. Near the end of the war, France allowed several trainloads to pass through but it was too late. Most of the supplies were either destroyed or sent back lest they fall into enemy hands.

When the fascists captured Catalonia, in January of 1939, 500,000 republican soldiers and civilians fled to France. The refugees were confined in concentration camps and were subjected to horrible conditions[11]. Britain’s and Frances final blow to the republic came in February of 1939 when it officially recognized Franco’s regime. Another country that Spain depended upon was the United States . After World War I, American foreign policy refused to interfere in the affairs of other countries, especially European nations.

Since the signing of the Neutrality Act of 1935, Americans were prohibited from selling any weapons of war to a country in war. The Americans, as well as British and French international businessmen were afraid that with a strong communist influence all foreign businesses would be nationalized, and they knew under Francos regime would protect these corporations. By end of March 1939 the last standing Republic cities of Valencia and Madrid fell to the control of General Franco and the Nationalists, shortly and thereafter on April 1, 1939 General Franco announces the end of the Spanish Civil War.

This Civil War was truly unique. It began as a struggle within Spain with two different political ideologies tearing the country apart, and although the war remained in the Spanish mainland, it progressed as the catalyst for the events that were to take place very shortly in Europe. The one man that seemed to want to capitalize from this was Hitler. Knowing that after the end of World War I, his country lacked the military experience, he decided to send troops over to Spain to experience the modern fighting conditions[12]. It served as prelude for the war that Hitler knew would be unavoidable.

This was also the case with Stalin whose fear was that of another major country falling in the hands of fascists could seriously jeopardise the stability of the European continent. Essentially the Spanish Civil War turned into an International Civil War, a battle of democratic forces versus fascist forces, which set up the stage for the next great and unfortunately the most brutal war, World War II. The Spanish Civil War was not only important to the history of the country, but also to the events that were to take place internationally, which would change the course of history forever.

In Spain the victory of Francos fascist forces set the course for right wing European domination. This led to the outbreak of World War II, which also saw the battle of two complete opposite political entities, with different political ideologies. A three year epic struggle that cost over one million lives, the Spanish Republic lost the Civil War and Spain was deprived of freedom for several decades afterwards. It is difficult to predict what might have happened had the republic won the war but it is likely that Spain would have become a much more advanced civilization instead of being one of Europe’s poorest nations today.

The cost of the loss to the United States , Great Britain, and France was not great but the cost to the Spanish people was enormous. Therefore by analyzing the political situation in Spain during the war, the various reasons that led to war, and finally the political influence from outside political forces. We clearly notice the outcome of this devastating civil struggle. It was a civil war that began before and led to other major conflicts, it was a battle of ideological supremacy that changed the course of history forever.

In the end Spain fell to Franco, but by then the world was looking at Germany’s expansion into Poland and shuddering at the possibility of a World War. It is believed that had Europe intervened in defence of Republican Spain, Germany and Italy would have been roundly defeated, and the Second World War could have been avoided. Instead Hitler got a chance to practice his blitzkrieg tactics on Spain in preparation for his expansion into Europe. The famous Picasso painting of the German bombing of Spanish civilians at Guernica would foreshadow the horrors awaiting a Europe that had turned it’s back on Spain.

To export a reference to this essay please select a referencing style below:

Related essays:

• The seeds of Hitler’s rise to power
• Adolf Hitler, a young Austrian Corporal
• Foreign Direct Investment:: Country Risk Assessmen
• Modern European History Review Sheet
• Fascist Germany The Result of Instability
• Ap European History Chapter 12 Review
• Hitler Was An Incredibly Gifted Person
• Who Really Ruled Italy in 1926-40
• Hitlers Rise To Power Essay
• The Rise And Fall Of Hitlers Reich
• Benito Mussolini’s Rise And Fall To Power
• When The Topic Of Dictators Is Brought Up Who Comes To Mind

248 Civil War Essay Topics & Examples

In case you’re looking for original Civil War research topics, you are on the right page.

• 📃 7 Tips for Writing Civil War Essay

☝️ 10 Best Civil War Argumentative Essay Topics

🏆 best civil war topic ideas & essay examples, 🥇 most interesting civil war topics to write about, 📑 creative civil war essay topics, 🎓 good civil war research topics, ⭐ simple & easy civil war essay titles, ✍️ civil war essay topics for college, ❓ civil war research questions.

Our team has collected a list of ideas for various assignments and complexity levels. Besides, you will find tips on writing a paper, be it for social studies course or a school project. So, get your Civil War topic to write about, and good luck!

📃 7 Tips for Writing a Civil War Essay

Every student of politics or history has to write a Civil War essay at some point. To make the process easier, we have collected the best tips on nailing the content, research, and structure! Here is how to earn an excellent mark on your paper:

Tip 1: Check the instructions carefully. You would be surprised to know how many students earn a C or less because they missed something in the instructions.

To avoid making this mistake, check all the materials provided by your tutor, including civil war essay topics, titles, and the grading rubric. Highlight the most important parts of the instructions to memorize them better.

Tip 2: Select a particular topic. Obviously, you will be focusing on the Civil War for this assignment. However, to make your paper stand out, try digging deeper and examining a specific aspect of the Civil War that interests you.

Would you be interested to evaluate how slavery impacted the Civil War? Or would you like to examine the causes and effects of this period? Pursuing your interests will aid you in adding more depth to your essay, and your tutor will certainly appreciate the effort!

Tip 3: Browse sample papers on the Civil War. Whether or not you are struggling with the first two tips, this process will be beneficial. There are plenty of resources on the Internet that you could search to find Civil War essay prompts and examples.

Reading those will aid you in defining the focus of your paper and structuring it well. Make sure to note what works well and what doesn’t in each paper you read. This way, you’ll know how to avoid making the same mistakes while writing your essay.

Tip 4: Do extensive research before you start writing. While you may have some basic information about the Civil War in your textbook, your tutor probably expects you to go beyond that and add more details.

In order to do that, you should search online resources or your institution’s library for books and articles about the Civil War. Be creative about your search! Try to examine all possible keywords and their combinations.

For instance, instead of merely typing in “civil war,” consider other search phrases, such as “civil war causes and effects,” “civil war politics,” and more. The more topics you include in your research, the more high-quality resources you will be able to find.

Tip 5: Avoid using unverified sources. While you may find a lot of useful information about the Civil War on various web pages, don’t be tempted to use them in the paper. The information contained in a blogs, non-academic website, or a civil war essay example may be unverified, false, or biased.

Don’t worry, the Internet still has a great selection of reputable articles and publications that you could rely on.

Hence, try limiting your search to peer-review journals, publications by universities, museums, or government entities, and history books. Doing so will help you to show your proficiency in secondary research while also preventing your tutor from taking away the deserved marks.

Tip 6: Structure your essay well. Each paragraph of your essay should have one central idea, and all of your statements should follow in a logical sequence.

For instance, if you are writing a paragraph on the events that led to emancipation proclamation, you should not mention the Great Depression there. Re-read each paragraph after completion to ensure that its content is relevant and there are no gaps.

Tip 7: Cite your sources correctly. Whenever you write down ideas that are not your own, include an in-text citation. Make sure to check the instructions to see which citation format is acceptable with your tutor!

If you are unfamiliar with a particular citation style, you can always search out website for formatting tips and guidelines, as well as for Civil War essay titles.

• The Role of Gettysburg in the American Civil War.
• Discussing the Ongoing War in Yemen.
• Who Is Likely to Become Soldiers in a Civil War Today?
• Syrian Civil War: Critical Events & Timeline.
• International Military Intervention in Civil Wars.
• Controversial Civil War Opinions.
• How Abraham Lincoln Finished the US Civil War.
• Political Reasons for the Russian Civil War in the 20th Century.
• How Newspapers Influence the Perception of Current Civil Wars.
• The Most Crucial Battles of the Spanish Civil War.
• The Conclusion of The Civil War The main reason that the Confederacy succeeded from the Union was the issue of States’ rights which are guaranteed by the Constitution but were almost completely lost following the Civil War.
• American history: The Civil War (1861-1865) It was a belief of Federalists that in order to ensure the union does not collapse, there was need for the federal government to hold on to power.
• “Victims: A True Story of the Civil War” by Phillip Shaw Paludan The course of this war and the way it affected the people who suffered from it presents the main concern for the author of the book.
• Role of the Woman During the Spanish Civil War This impact of the Spanish war is even clearer by consideration of the fact that the war had the implications of making women take up the jobs that originally belonged to men in the industries […]
• Individualism as an Ideal of Civil War in America Most of the Americans believe that James town is the birth place of the distinctive, secular and unique ideals of America that led to America’s freedom and prosperity.
• Yugoslav Wars: Ethnic Conflicts and the Collapse of Power However, the collapse of the Soviet Union meant the end of this era and the start of the post-Cold War period, with its unique peculiarities of the international discourse.
• The Causes of the Islamic Civil War The power was passed from father and son, and the Quraish of the Hashemites handed power to the Umayyads after the murder of Muttalib.
• Soldiers’ Letters From American Civil War Even before the war, the South or the confederates had wanted to secede from the Union or the United States of America.
• The American Civil War: Causes and Aftermath The war happened because of economical, political and cultural differences between the Northern states and the Southern states. In the late 1970s to 1860s, slavery was the norm in most of the Southern states.
• Underlying Causes of the Sierra Leone Civil War The unfortunate outcomes of the war, both in numbers and in the reality of the situation, raise the question of what other factors may have further contributed to the war.
• Freedom in Antebellum America: Civil War and Abolishment of Slavery The American Civil War, which led to the abolishment of slavery, was one of the most important events in the history of the United States.
• The Battle of Chickamauga in the American Civil War The topic that is the focus of this paper is the battle of Chickamauga and its influence on the course of the Civil War.
• Civil War in the Film “Gone With the Wind” The American Civil War and Reconstruction era together had a significant impact on the entire history of the USA and a number of major changes that happened in the states of the Old South.
• Illustrations After the American Civil War The underlying argument of this paper is that illustrations were used to shape the opinion of the public towards the support of the American civil war.
• Civil War in America: “An Occurrence at Owl Creek Bridge” by Ambrose Bierce For instance, in his story, Bierce gives specific details of the setting of the story, which is during the civil war in Alabama.
• Causes of the Civil War: Battle on the Bay The central issue in the Civil War was the question of the spread of slavery. The growing discontent of the southerners and the abolition of slavery in the country prompted them to take extreme measures.
• The Factors That Led to the Outbreak of the Yemeni Civil War Saudi Arabia borders it to the north, the Red Sea, and the Gulf of Aden to the west and south. Terror groups such as al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula and the Islamic State have […]
• The Spanish Civil War in Picasso’s, Siqueiros’, Dali’s Paintings The piece conveys the horrors and losses of the event dead adults and children, a horse in agony as an important symbol in Spain, and the suffering of survivors are present here. In various ways, […]
• The Post-Civil War Era in the Lives of African Americans In the post-Civil War era, African Americans faced significant barriers to homeownership, as they were often denied access to mortgages and other forms of financing.
• The Role of Women in the Civil War However, the Civil War was a major turning point for women, as they were allowed into new professions and helped the front from both sides of the conflict.
• The American Civil War Period The overall worth of all the farms and outbuildings in the South was equivalent to the capital invested in enslaved individuals.
• The Civil War by K. Burns Film Review The Civil War is now considered one of the landmark events in the history of the United States that established the foundation for the country’s principles of equality of opportunity and democracy.
• The American Civil War and Its Main Stages On the other hand, the army of the North was precisely to overthrow the power of the Confederacy, eliminate the system of slavery and seize the territories of the South under the rule of the […]
• Women Who Fought in the American Civil War The generally accepted point of view is the idea of the American Civil War as a war of men. The American Civil War was one of the major armed conflicts in the history of the […]
• Civil War in Shaara’s The Killer Angels and Glory Film 1 The film Glory links the Civil War to slavery, on the other hand, The Killer Angels defines the war as an event to gain control.
• The American Civil War: Pro- & Anti-Slavery Forces The pro-slavery forces argued that slavery was the right thing to do, promoting abolitionists and the anti-slavery forces as terrible villains because they wanted to abolish slavery.
• The Election of 1860: The Final Step to Civil War However, the presidential election of 1860 was the last spark that fuelled the flames of the Civil War. The 1860 election outcome revealed that the opposition had no hope of beating Lincoln and the Republicans […]
• The Life of the US After the Civil War Such ideas were able to change in the future but speaking of the time when the events of the Civil War took place, the economy, tired of the war, was in horrible shape and needed […]
• American Cities and Urbanization After the Civil War American cities’ central development and urbanization occurred in the years after the end of the Civil War. Firstly, the active development of urbanization was caused by the fact that people began to move to cities […]
• African American Soldiers in the Civil War The intensity of the War led to the collisions that led to the enslavement of many black soldiers until President Lincoln had to pass a General Order 233, which barred any threat that would lead […]
• Lincoln’s Views on Ending the Civil War The Emancipation Proclamation brought about by the Civil War led to important milestones in ending slavery in the US. He decided to transform from the extension of slavery to the eradication of the Peculiar Institution.
• The American Civil War’s Causes and Inevitability Using the example of a deceived and suffering enslaved person, the author showed the cowardice, hypocrisy, and lies of the entire system and its defenders in particular.
• Emory Upton in the Battle of Columbus in the Civil War From this point of view it is necessary to conduct a detailed analysis of his strategy, and to identify the reasons for the failure of the most significant battle in the history of the general.
• A Civil War with Former Ethiopian Rulers The aim of this paper is to analyze the reasons and possible ways to end this conflict regarding the concepts of peacemaking and peacebuilding.
• Civil War: Causes, Technology, and Justification The factors that contributed to the war were multi-varied and complex, mostly stemming from the fact that the Southern economy was dependent on agricultural slave labor and thus protested the federal abolition of slavery as […]
• Generals of the American Civil War Ulysses Grant and Robert Lee They made major contributions to the period as military commanders Lee leading the Army of Northern Virginia and Grant commanding various forces in the Western theater and then the Army of the Potomac.
• Stepping Stones to the American Civil War Due to the obvious huge enslavement, Scott and several others were compelled to migrate, and he was transferred to Missouri. Douglas sided with the original founders and their work, claiming that Lincoln was harm to […]
• The Origins of the American Civil War After the assessment of the historical facts and relevant readings, it becomes evident that the war was inevitable. It can be viewed among the primary causes that intensified the pressure between Northerners and Southerners and […]
• Civil War and Supreme Court: The Enforcement of the Slave-Trade Laws I believe the leading causes of the American Civil war were the fight over the moral issue of slavery and political differences between the Southern and Northern American states.
• Kongo’s Fourteen-Year Civil War Two of the threats that are recognized as most important are disease and climate change. Considering the facts mentioned above, it is possible to suggest that humans and their actions are the major underlying issue […]
• Civil War and Horton’s Review It became the bloodiest in history and led to the consolidation of the 13th amendment to the US Constitution and the abolition of slavery.
• American History From Civil War to 20th Century The weakness of the federal government is regarded as the major reason behind the hardships of the nation during the post-war decades.
• Social Aspect in the Attitude Towards the American Civil War The analysis of the American Civil War requires the observation of various views to understand how different scientists regard the causes, progress, and the consequences of the conflict.
• Online Resources on the American Civil War Topic The website mainly publishes information about the American battlegrounds of the Civil War, the Revolutionary War and the 1812 War. Also, the website design is appealing and appears captivating to the reader, and it meets […]
• Ken Burns “The Civil War” Review When discussing the condition of the Potomac Army, the narrator mentions that the Union soldiers suffered greatly from the lack of provision due to inadequate supplies.
• A Turning Point During the Civil War True to his words, President Lincoln signed the Proclamation of Emancipation on January 1, 1863, which changed the cause of the war in favor of the Union.
• Researching of Civil War Causes In addition, in the modern world, it is challenging to accept that the consequences of the war regarded the death of numerous people.
• The Myth of the Lost Cause and the American Civil War The Myth of the Lost Cause is a pseudo ideology that promotes the theory that the cause of the Confederate States during the 1860s American Civil War was heroic and just.
• The Early Republic and the American Civil War The main reason for the rise of the first parties in the Early Republic was the establishment of the central government by the declaration of the Constitution in 1787.
• The American Civil War: Key Points It was actually a civil war between the states of the United States of America. The republicans had been fighting for the stop of the expansion of slave trade that was in existence in some […]
• Slaves in the Civil War and Free Blacks After It The Compromise of 1850 was a set of five bills the Congress passed to solve political confrontations between the free states and the states promoting slavery.
• Brigadier-General Mosby Monroe Parsons in the Civil War As an experienced army commander who fought in the Mexican-American War, Parsons was given the command of the Sixth Division of the Missouri State Guard. Under the higher command of General Price, Parsons was involved […]
• Effects of the Civil War in Western North Carolina Communities in Appalachian Mountains The political and social life of people inhabiting the western North Carolina communities in Appalachian Mountains was also considerably affected by the Civil War, and this paper focuses at the specific analysis of the Civil […]
• Not Set in Stone: Ethnicity and Civil War Thus, when analyzing civil wars or other conflicts in split ethnic homelands, one should pay careful attention to the dynamics of ethnic identity rather than presume that ethnicity is non-malleable and set in stone.
• American Civil War and Fiji Coups Historically, civil war and revolutions are intertwined with one following the other. However, there are substantial differences.
• States’ Rights as the Main Cause of the Civil War The presentation offers an overview of the main causes of the Civil War of 1861–1865 in America. The war was the main disaster breaking up the successful history of the USA.
• Abolition vs. Equality in the American Civil War The Resolution was signed by Abraham Lincoln, the 16th President of the United States who believed the annihilation of slavery and preserving the Union to be the core targets of the war.
• The American Civil War: Key Issues The American Civil War involved the North of the Union and the confederate states of America. The uncompromising differences between the enslaved and free states over the prohibition of slavery in the region were the […]
• The Run-up to the Civil War The American Civil War was fueled by aggressive actions from the South’s states, not the North. Without giving up the opportunity to protect their interests, the South was forced to start a war.
• Generals and Technological Advancements in Civil War This makes it paramount to review the approaches to the war of two major war generals such as Gant and McClellan and comment on the use of technology on and off the battlefield.
• The Civil War and the Development of American Medicine It is challenging to deny the fact that the Civil War had a significant impact on the American nation and medicine.
• The U.S. Medicine During the Civil War: A Response to the Discussion The vast amount of the soldiers who became victims of such a treatment can be visible on the pictures of the exhibition.
• Civil War Effect on Medicine and Public Health Firstly, one should mention that the Civil War reshaped the role of nurses. In conclusion, it is possible to mention that the Civil War has a controversial impact on medicine and public health.
• Horace Greeley’s Significance to the U.S. Civil War Era The purpose of this paper is to describe the biography of Horace Greeley from birth to death and analyze his influence and significance to the U.S.
• First Fitna: Islamic Civil War Evaluating the situation, it appears that the First Islamic Civil war led to the split in the Muslim religion caused by the effects of the Arbitration Agreement developed after the battle of Siffin.
• Divergences Between North and South as Major Causes of the American Civil War The inequalities in the labor market and in the spread of democracy are some of the initial divergences between the southern and northern states.
• The Main Cause of the Civil War Texas, upon separating, has deemed the notion of abolition to be “the debasing doctrine of the equality of all men, irrespective of race and color a doctrine at war with nature, in opposition to the […]
• “Prelude to the Civil War” by William Freehling: America’s Historic Legacy There is no limit to perfection; therefore, we can hardly stop the historical researches and the search of the essence and the grounds of all the historical events that humanity has been through.
• Slavery, Civil War, and Abolitionist Movement in 1850-1865 They knew they were free only they had to show the colonists that they were aware of that.[1] The slaves were determined and in the unfreed state they still were in rebellion and protested all […]
• Fort Sumter, South Carolina – Civil War The 1812 war spurred the need for construction of a fort to strengthen the United States military along the coast which led to construction of fort Sumter.
• The China Civil War: Key Aspects This civil war was mainly a conflict between the nationalists and the communists and led to the formation of the People’s Republic of China.
• Lincoln and America – The Civil War and Its Aftermath In reality, the north and southern states began the war because the South was not entitled to the States’ rights, which they demanded and were not getting.
• Civil War and Reconstruction: War Strategy and Economic Policy The War resulted in the Reconstruction of the whole economic system of the United States with the indispensable condition of slavery abolition.
• How Was the Economy of New York Transformed by the Civil War? The economy in the post-Civil War was favored by the construction of railroads which connected the industrial cities of the northeast and the agricultural areas of the Midwest and the plains.
• The Battle of Fort Donelson and Its Role in the Civil War Fort Henry, situated 10 miles to the west of Fort Donelson, was perceived to be the weakest point in Confederate Commander in the West General Albert Sidney Johnston’s line.
• Civil Rights in America From the Civil War to 1974 Energized and encouraged by the successes of the civil rights movement, activists worked to reverse the discriminatory laws restricting the influx of darker-skinned peoples into the U.S.
• American Civil War: Brief Retrospective This resulted in the divide between the free territory in the North and the practice of slavery in the South, an issue which the federal authority was unable to resolve hence, creating a boundary between […]
• Culture Shock: Civil War in Bosnia This can b described as the state of emotional, physical and psychological discomfort one undergoes when interacts with new culture as opposed to the old culture which comes about as a result in the change […]
• Civil War and Reconstruction After the Civil War, the country faced problems in the economy, politics, and social sphere but the changes which occurred during the period of Reconstruction alleviated these problems and influenced positively the overall situation in […]
• The Spanish Civil War, Franco vs. Hitler, Juan Pujol, Double Agents The war ended with the conquest of the revolutionaries and the dawning of the authoritarianism led by General Francisco Franco, a fascist.
• American Civil War as a Historical Topic The Southern faction’s worries of relinquishing control of the federal administration to antislavery groups, and the Northern faction’s qualms relating to the power of the slaveholding states of the south in the regime, amplified the […]
• American Civil War Causes Analysis The first position was formulated by David Wilmot who opined that the Congress had the power to abolish slavery leading to the declaration of the Ordinance of 1787, also known as the Wilmot Proviso stating […]
• Civil War and Strategy in Lebanon Egypt was considered to be a powerful supporter of the front which is located on the left wing in the area.
• English Civil War and Glorious Revolution This war led to the introduction of the parliamentary democracy system of governance in England and the abolition of absolute power by the monarch.
• Why Germany and Italy Supported Nationalists During the Spanish Civil War The Republican government won by narrow margins which lead to the emergence of the Spanish Civil war. The war also weakened the power of the countries which were considered to be superpowers.
• Tarrow’s “Power in Movement” and Wood’s “Insurgent Collective Action and Civil War in El Salvador” The role played by external actors such as the government, non-government organizations, and political parties in the emergence, spread, and decline of the rondas campesinas, employing Tarrow’s concepts of political opportunities and constraints, frames, repertoires […]
• The Civil War: The Course of Events and Reasons This paper also hypothesizes that due to the differences and political conflict between the North and the South, the Civil War erupted.
• ”Drawn With the Sword: Reflections on the American Civil War” by McPherson It also deconstructs assumptions made about the battles that took place and the consequences of the war for the United States and the world in general.
• Why American Civil War Was Initiated Historians argue about the level of significance of each of the reasons, but generally, they agree on the following roots of the major inner conflict that has ever occurred in the USA.
• Slavery Without the Civil War: Hypothesis The demand for slaves and the positive effect of this in the slaveholders’ profitability as well as the fact that both slaveholders and the slaves need one another to survive saw to it that the […]
• Civil War in USA: The North and the South The differences in the lifestyles and ethics of the North and the South are one of the main reasons for the start of the Civil War.
• The Spanish Civil War of 1936-1939 The main reasons were the reformist and the conservatives. This was the Spanish Confederation of the Autonomous Right.
• The Black Confederate Soldier in the Civil War The free blacks of New Orleans who created a regiment of “Native Guards” for the Louisiana armed force and the Confederate effort late in the war were to employ slaves as soldiers”.
• The Economics of the Civil War Evidently, the chief outcome of civil war is the loss of life and general depression in the healthiness of the population at large.
• World Cultures: Somali Civil War The Somali National Movement gained control of the north, while in the capital of Mogadishu and most of southern Somalia the United Somali Congress achieved control.
• Civil War Effect on American Industrialization The “Beard-Hacker Thesis” had become the most widely accepted interpretation of the economic impact of the Civil War which believed that the impact of the war on American industrialization was profound.
• Climate Change and the Syrian Civil War Revisited The authors note that the purpose of their paper is to explore the quality of the evidence provided by the supporters of the thesis. Selby et al.note that there is no relationship between climate change […]
• History of the Civil War in Sierra Leone The need to restore peace and facilitate reconciliation in Sierra Leone prompted adoption of the idea of transitional justice. The SCSL and the TRC constituted the major forms of transitional justice in Sierra Leone.
• Military Conflicts at the Civil War With regard to the case of humanitarian assistance to the people of Somalia, it is important to consider the factor of the effectiveness of the measures taken in terms of their impact on the domestic […]
• “The Civil War” Documentary: Strengths and Weaknesses Therefore, the attention to detail and the inclusion of a vast variety of documentary items may be considered as the biggest advantage of the movie.
• Civil War in Mississippi. “Free State of Jones” Film He narrates about the deportations of Mexicans from the USA in the first half of the 19th century that was organized to foster Euro-American colonization of the Texas territory. One of the differences between the […]
• General Meigs’ Role in Civil War Often referred to as America’s Quartermaster, Meigs is now considered the epitome of a strategic leader that took upon the logistical challenges that the Union Army faced and refused to give up even during the […]
• American History, the Civil War and Reconstruction In this context, his first inaugural address can be seen as a call for the South to avoid civil war, as opposed to a call upon the North to start one, and the second inaugural […]
• American Civil War Chapter of Deloria’s “This Land” Importantly, the Confederates sustained more attacks on the Union forces of the North, and in July 1861, under the command of General Thomas J.
• The US Civil War Funding The author claims that during the war, the confederacy was in serious need of money to fund the war because the south could not sell cotton to European markets because the union had blocked the […]
• Private Security Strategy in the US Since the Civil War Based on the factors provided above, it could be concluded that the modern definition of security and its purposes as defined by the consequences of the Civil War due to the presence of the accumulation […]
• The United States Since the Civil War During the ‘roaring twenties’ people were seeking at least a decent life devoid of war as a way of escaping from the trauma that emanated from the ‘Great War.’ The worst thing to have happened […]
• History of the United States Since the Civil War Basically, the student touched on entirely every aspect that was a thorn in the flesh of Americans: social, economical, and political.
• Syrian Civil War Threating Turkey’s National Security The paper explored all the possible causes of the ongoing Syrian civil crisis, with the historical perspective from the mayhem between Syria and Turkey being significantly imperative.
• Slavery as a Cause of the American Civil War On the other hand, one is to keep in mind that many historians are of the opinion that the reasons for the war are not so easy to explain.
• Slavery, American Civil War, and Reconstruction Indian removal from the Southeast in the late 19th century was as a result of the rapid expansion of the United States into the south.
• Cooperative Learning at American Civil War Lesson I will introduce the questions after giving the following short statement, “Having heard some of the causes and consequences of the war, you are required to answer some short questions to determine your current level […]
• Battle of Chancellorsville in American Civil War Although the Confederate Army was outnumbered two to one, General Robert Lee’s ability to devise a simple plan and accept risk by splitting his force to counterattack his opponent’s flank, resulted in the significant defeat […]
• Medicine During the American Civil War The reason why the disease was prevalent among the army was partly because of the lax recruitment processes that admitted underage and overage men into the army. The most common treatment during the Civil War […]
• American Industrialization, Romanticism and Civil War In the article, the Romantic Movement Romantic impulse meant the liberation of the Americans to a point of freedom regarding respect and love.
• Pre-Civil War Antislavery Movement and Debates The first one was the introduction of a newspaper by the name The Liberator that was against any form of servitude.
• Sri Lankan Civil War as 20th-Century’s Inhumanity The 20th century is considered one of the worst centuries in human history in terms of human-made atrocities that resulted in the deaths of millions of people.
• Industrial Revolution Influence on US Civil War Furthermore, both sides, the Union and the Confederacy had to mobilize their economies and engage business in the war due to their dependency on different industries and suppliers.ii The industrial revolution changed warfare by introducing […]
• Reconstruction Era After American Civil War The Reconstruction Era in the US refers to the period after the Union victory in the Civil War when slaves were freed and given the opportunity to change their future.
• Post-Civil War America: Political and Economic Changes The main objective of the act was to eliminate the social and cultural traditions of native residents and make them a part of an established system.
• American People II: Post Civil War Era In most of the wars associated with the United States, it is evident that the ultimate objective has always been to pursue its national interests.
• Industrialization Period After the American Civil War The leadership roles of authority, through the government, took the responsibility of promoting peaceful relationship and mobilization among the Americans. The introduction of the new business opportunities from the traders were affected by the disruption […]
• Industrial Revolution After the Civil War The cause of America’s industrial revolution can be attributed to the creation of the first factories in the country, its westward expansion in the territory, the rise of the railroad industry as well as the […]
• Union Soldiers in the Civil War In this way, it was hoped to assure the popular support of the army, which was consistent with the decentralized nature of the country of the time.
• Reconstruction After the Civil War: Enforcement Acts The analysis of the reactions to the acts adopted throughout the Reconstruction Era helps to reveal the views and societal beliefs that prevailed during that time in the country and complicated the attempts to improve […]
• The Civil War in the History of the USA First of all, one should realize the fact that the representatives of the southern and northern states had different mentalities and perspectives on the way the USA should evolve.
• The American Civil War’ Issues There are a lot of reasons why the North won the Civil War and the South lost. The North had a strong merchant marine fleet and a lot of naval ships that managed to blockade […]
• Post Civil War: The Bay of Pigs Invasion It strengthened the positions of the Castro’s government, as well as the relations between Cuba and the Soviet Union, which eventually led to the Cuban Missile Crisis.
• Poverty as a Cause of the Sudanese Civil War The connection between poverty and conflict has been analyzed in the West African region where “11 of the world’s 25 poorest countries are contained and is currently one of the most unstable regions of the […]
• The Chinese Civil War in the 20th Century The Chinese Civil War was one of the key conflicts in the 20th century and had a lasting impact on the development of the country and the lives of future generations of Chinese.
• American Civil War in “Glory” and “Lincoln” Films The movie Glory is a biography drama film reflecting the events during the Civil War between 1861 and 1865, as well as the contribution of the Captain Robert Gould Shaw to the abolition of slavery […]
• American Civil War in the “Glory” Movie Glory is a movie that depicts the story of the very first troop to fight in the Civil War for the Northern America.
• Great Awakening, American Civil War, and Feminism In this regard, the anti-federalists implied that the bill of rights was not added to the original text of the constitution.
• Syrian Civil War and Need for Mediation With this in mind, it is possible to say that the conflict is very tensed as a great number of countries are involved in it.
• Military Technology in the American Civil War During this time, victory largely depended on the size of the army, the effectiveness of the generals to plan and execute ambush, and the morale of the military unit.
• US Army’s Challenges After the American Civil War The problem was caused by the use of contaminated water, poor sanitation at the camps, and general lack of hygiene among the soldiers because of the nature of the battle.
• Battle of Antietam in the American Civil War It emphasized the legitimacy of the Union forces in the country. It meant that the Union forces achieved their primary aim of going to war.
• Reconstruction in the US After the Civil War It was rather hard to implement the Reconstruction, as the Congress and presidents had different views on the situation and saw different ways of reaching the goal.
• American Civil War in “Classmates Divided” This article covers the story of the soldiers before, during and after the war, “the cadets were almost completely dependent on their classmates for companionship, and the friendships they formed would last a lifetime of […]
• Industrialization After the American Civil War Industrialization that occurred in the USA in the 19th-20th centuries changed the face of the country. At the same time, development of business, unfair practices of entrepreneurs and various deadly accidents led to creation of […]
• The Civil War’s Real Causes: McPherson’s View
• Syrian Uprisings and Civil War
• Libya Civil War Since 2011 Until Today
• American Civil War: Factors and Compromises
• The Inner Civil War: The Lost Cause System
• The English Civil War: Causes, Costs and Benefits
• American Civil War Issues
• Slavery Arguments and American Civil War
• Industrialisation After the Civil War
• Was the Civil War Inevitable?
• Syrian Civil War: Origins and Geopolitical Consequences
• US Progress in Freedom, Equality and Power Since Civil War
• American Foreign Policy on Syrian Civil War
• North Carolina’s Role in the Civil War
• Slavery and the Civil War Relationship
• The Civil War in America
• Modern Civil War in Ukraine
• The Coming Civil War Predict Reasons
• American History: The Road to Civil War
• How to End the Syrian Civil War?
• United States History Since the Civil War
• Slavery and the Civil War
• Causes of Civil War in America
• Effect of Civil War on Economic Growth
• Ethnic Polarization and the Duration of Civil War
• Effect of Civil War on Economic Growth: Evidence From Sudan
• Post-Civil War Reconstruction in the American History
• Bosnia and Herzegovina: Civil War or Religious Conflict and the Role of Women
• Syrian Civil War and Its Possible Ramification on Turkey’s National Security Interests
• How Did Reconstruction Change the United States After the Civil War?
• The U.S. Civil War and Its Aftermath
• Reconstructing the United States After the Civil War
• Religious Ethnic Factions of Syrian Civil War
• “Reconstruction: The Second Civil War, Parts I and II”: Revealing Narratives and Lesser-Known Lives
• The United States in the Aftermath of 1860-1870’s Civil War
• Sierra Leone’s 1991 Civil War
• Civil War and Poverty: “The Bottom Billion” by Paul Collier
• The Main Impacts of the Civil War in the Democratic Republic of Congo
• Blood Diamonds and Financing Civil Wars in West and Central Africa
• Causes of Civil War in the USA
• The Political Aftermath of the Sri Lankan Civil War
• The Civil War and Its Aftermath
• The American Civil War as the Turning Point in American History
• Gone With Wind: The Ideas of the Civil War in the Movie
• The Civil War Dilemmas: Slave-Owner Relations
• The American Civil War: Rules, Chronology and Turning Points
• Racial Injustices and the Cost of Civil War: The African American Perspective
• Ghost of Civil War Past 1850-1859
• American Civil War Strategy and Leadership
• The American Civil War Causes and Outcomes
• How and Why the Union Was the Civil War
• Civil War in United States
• What Led up to the Civil War and Could It Have Been Prevented?
• Period of Civil War in the American History
• Causes of Civil War
• Civil War Paper: Valley of the Shadow
• Impacts of English Civil War
• The Role That the Northern and Southern Women Played in the Civil War
• Why the Reconstruction After the Civil War Was a Failure
• Liberia: A Country Struggling From the Effects of Civil War
• Racism in America After the Civil War up to 1900
• Why Confederate and Union Soldiers Fought?
• The United States Civil War
• The Most Disastrous Civil Conflict in American History
• The Aftermath of the American Civil War
• Slavery, the Civil War & Reconstruction
• Letters From the Civil War
• Industrialization After the Civil War
• Why Should the United States Intervene in the Syrian Civil War?
• Why Did the English Civil War Begin?
• How Did the 1975 Lebanese Civil War Start?
• How Did the Civil War Affect African Americans?
• Why Did North America Win the Civil War?
• Which Was the Most Important Reason for the Outbreak of the English Civil War?
• What Is the Role of Women During the Civil War?
• What Degree Did Slavery Really Play in the Civil War?
• Why Did the Bolsheviks Win the Russian Civil War?
• Was the Irish Civil War a “Natural” Conclusion to Previous Years Events?
• Could the South Have Won the Civil War?
• Why Did the Communists Win the Chinese Civil War?
• Why Was the Civil War So Long and So Bloody?
• Who Caused the English Civil War?
• Which Ethnicity Factors Can Explain the Escalation of an Ethnic Conflict to a Civil War?
• Why Did the Communists Win the Civil War?
• How Close Did Britain Come to Civil War in 1912-1914?
• How Did the Constitution Set the Precedent for the Civil War?
• What Are the Reasons for the Success of the Bolsheviks in the Russian Civil War 1918-1920?
• Was Slavery the Only Cause of the Civil War?
• Why Did the Reds Win the Russian Civil War?
• Why Did Great Britain and France Pursue a Policy of Non-intervention During the Spanish Civil War?
• Who Controlled the Mississippi River During the Civil War?
• Why the American Civil War Lasted for Longer Than 90 Days?
• Can the United States Justify the Civil War?
• Syrian Civil War: Could It Have Been Avoided and How Vast Did the Conflict Become?
• Was the English Civil War a War of Religion?
• Why Did the Union North Win the Civil War?
• The Problems That America Faced During the Reconstruction Period After the Civil War?
• Why Could the South Not Win the Civil War?
• Chicago (A-D)
• Chicago (N-B)

IvyPanda. (2024, February 27). 248 Civil War Essay Topics & Examples. https://ivypanda.com/essays/topic/civil-war-essay-examples/

"248 Civil War Essay Topics & Examples." IvyPanda , 27 Feb. 2024, ivypanda.com/essays/topic/civil-war-essay-examples/.

IvyPanda . (2024) '248 Civil War Essay Topics & Examples'. 27 February.

IvyPanda . 2024. "248 Civil War Essay Topics & Examples." February 27, 2024. https://ivypanda.com/essays/topic/civil-war-essay-examples/.

1. IvyPanda . "248 Civil War Essay Topics & Examples." February 27, 2024. https://ivypanda.com/essays/topic/civil-war-essay-examples/.

Bibliography

IvyPanda . "248 Civil War Essay Topics & Examples." February 27, 2024. https://ivypanda.com/essays/topic/civil-war-essay-examples/.

• Civil Rights Movement Questions
• Abraham Lincoln Topics
• Iraq War Research Ideas
• World War 1 Research Ideas
• Afghanistan War Essay Topics
• World War 2 Essay Topics
• American Revolution Topics
• Cuban Revolution Ideas
• World History Topics
• Rwandan Genocide Research Ideas
• Vietnam War Paper Topics
• Israeli-Palestinian Conflict Research Topics
• International Politics Questions
• French Revolution Paper Topics

• About George Orwell
• Partners and Sponsors
• Accessibility
• Upcoming events
• The Orwell Festival
• The Orwell Memorial Lectures
• Books by Orwell
• Essays and other works
• Encountering Orwell
• Orwell Live
• About the prizes
• Reporting Homelessness
• Enter the Prizes
• Previous winners
• Orwell Fellows
• Introduction
• Enter the Prize
• Terms and Conditions
• Volunteering
• About Feedback
• Responding to Feedback
• Start your journey
• Inspiration
• Find Your Form
• Start Writing
• Reading Recommendations
• Previous themes
• Our offer for teachers
• Lesson Plans
• Events and Workshops
• Orwell in the Classroom
• GCSE Practice Papers
• The Orwell Youth Fellows
• Paisley Workshops

The Orwell Foundation

• The Orwell Prizes
• The Orwell Youth Prize

Looking Back on the Spanish War

As an independent charity, we rely on the generosity of  donors, Friends and Patrons  to maintain these free resources.

First of all the physical memories, the sound, the smells and the surfaces of things.

It is curious that more vividly than anything that came afterwards in the Spanish war I remember the week of so-called training that we received before being sent to the front – the huge cavalry barracks in Barcelona with its draughty stables and cobbled yards, the icy cold of the pump where one washed, the filthy meals made tolerable by pannikins of wine, the trousered militia-women chopping firewood, and the roll-call in the early mornings where my prosaic English name made a sort of comic interlude among the resounding Spanish ones, Manuel Gonzalez, Pedro Aguilar, Ramon Fenellosa, Roque Ballaster, Jaime Domenech, Sebastian Viltron, Ramon Nuvo Bosch. I name those particular men because I remember the faces of all of them. Except for two who were mere riff-raff and have doubtless become good Falangists by this time, it is probable that all of them are dead. Two of them I know to be dead. The eldest would have been about twenty-five, the youngest sixteen.

One of the essential experiences of war is never being able to escape from disgusting smells of human origin. Latrines are an overworked subject in war literature, and I would not mention them if it were not that the latrine in our barracks did its necessary bit towards puncturing my own illusions about the Spanish Civil War. The Latin type of latrine, at which you have to squat, is bad enough at its best, but these were made of some kind of polished stone so slippery that it was all you could do to keep on your feet. In addition they were always blocked. Now I have plenty of other disgusting things in my memory, but I believe it was these latrines that first brought home to me the thought, so often to recur; ‘Here we are, soldiers of a revolutionary army, defending democracy against Fascism, fighting a war which is about something, and the detail of our lives is just as sordid and degrading as it could be in prison, let alone in a bourgeois army.’ Many other things reinforced this impression later; for instance, the boredom and animal hunger of trench life, the squalid intrigues over scraps of food, the mean, nagging quarrels which people exhausted by lack of sleep indulge in.

The essential horror of army life (whoever has been a soldier will know what I mean by the essential horror of army life) is barely affected by the nature of the war you happen to be fighting in. Discipline, for instance, is ultimately the same in all armies. Orders have to be obeyed and enforced by punishment if necessary, the relationship of officer and man has to be the relationship of superior and inferior. The picture of war set forth in books like All Quiet on the Western Front is substantially true. Bullets hurt, corpses stink, men under fire are often so frightened that they wet their trousers. It is true that the social background from which an army springs will colour its training, tactics and general efficiency, and also that the consciousness of being in the right can bolster up morale, though this affects the civilian population more than the troops. (People forget that a soldier anywhere near the front line is usually too hungry, or frightened, or cold, or, above all, too tired to bother about the political origins of the war.) But the laws of nature are not suspended for a ‘red’ army any more than for a ‘white’ one. A louse is a louse and a bomb is a bomb, even though the cause you are fighting for happens to be just.

Why is it worth while to point out anything so obvious? Because the bulk of the British and American intelligentsia were manifestly unaware of it then, and are now. Our memories are short nowadays, but look back a bit, dig out the files of New Masses or the Daily Worker , and just have a look at the romantic warmongering muck that our left-wingers were spilling at that time. All the stale old phrases! And the unimaginative callousness of it! The sang-froid with which London faced the bombing of Madrid! Here I am not bothering about the counter-propagandists of the Right, the Lunns , Garvins et hoc genus ; they go without saying. But here were the very people who for twenty years had hooted and jeered at the ‘glory’ of war, at atrocity stories, at patriotism, even at physical courage, coming out with stuff that with the alteration of a few names would have fitted into the Daily Mail of 1918. If there was one thing that the British intelligentsia were committed to, it was the debunking version of war, the theory that war is all corpses and latrines and never leads to any good result. Well, the same people who in 1933 sniggered pityingly if you said that in certain circumstances you would fight for your country, in 1937 were denouncing you as a Trotsky-Fascist if you suggested that the stories in New Masses about freshly wounded men clamouring to get back into the fighting might be exaggerated. And the Left intelligentsia made their swing-over from ‘War is hell’ to ‘War is glorious’ not only with no sense of incongruity but almost without any intervening stage. Later the bulk of them were to make other transitions equally violent. There must be a quite large number of people, a sort of central core of the intelligentsia, who approved the ‘King and Country’ declaration in 1935, shouted for a ‘firm line’ against Germany in 1937, supported the People’s Convention in 1940, and are demanding a Second Front now.

As far as the mass of the people go, the extraordinary swings of opinion which occur nowadays, the emotions which can be turned on and off like a tap, are the result of newspaper and radio hypnosis. In the intelligentsia I should say they result rather from money and mere physical safety. At a given moment they may be ‘pro-war’ or ‘anti-war’, but in either case they have no realistic picture of war in their minds. When they enthused over the Spanish war they knew, of course, that people were being killed and that to be killed is unpleasant, but they did feel that for a soldier in the Spanish Republican army the experience of war was somehow not degrading. Somehow the latrines stank less, discipline was less irksome. You have only to glance at the New Statesman to see that they believed that; exactly similar blah is being written about the Red Army at this moment. We have become too civilized to grasp the obvious. For the truth is very simple. To survive you often have to fight, and to fight you have to dirty yourself. War is evil, and it is often the lesser evil. Those who take the sword perish by the sword, and those who don’t take the sword perish by smelly diseases. The fact that such a platitude is worth writing down shows what the years of rentier capitalism have done to us.

In connexion with what I have just said, a footnote, on atrocities.

I have little direct evidence about the atrocities in the Spanish Civil War. I know that some were committed by the Republicans, and far more (they are still continuing) by the Fascists. But what impressed me then, and has impressed me ever since, is that atrocities are believed in or disbelieved in solely on grounds of political predilection. Everyone believes in the atrocities of the enemy and disbelieves in those of his own side, without ever bothering to examine the evidence. Recently I drew up a table of atrocities during the period between 1918 and the present; there was never a year when atrocities were not occurring somewhere or other, and there was hardly a single case when the Left and the Right believed in the same stories simultaneously. And stranger yet, at any moment the situation can suddenly reverse itself and yesterday’s proved-to-the-hilt atrocity story can become a ridiculous lie, merely because the political landscape has changed.

In the present war we are in the curious situation that our ‘atrocity campaign’ was done largely before the war started, and done mostly by the Left, the people who normally pride themselves on their incredulity. In the same period the Right, the atrocity-mongers of 1914-18, were gazing at Nazi Germany and flatly refusing to see any evil in it. Then as soon as war broke out it was the pro-Nazis of yesterday who were repeating horror stories, while the anti-Nazis suddenly found themselves doubting whether the Gestapo really existed. Nor was this solely the result of the Russo-German Pact. It was partly because before the war the Left had wrongly believed that Britain and Germany would never fight and were therefore able to be anti-German and anti-British simultaneously; partly also because official war propaganda, with its disgusting hypocrisy and self-righteousness, always tends to make thinking people sympathize with the enemy. Part of the price we paid for the systematic lying of 1914-18 was the exaggerated pro-German reaction which followed. During the years 1918-33 you were hooted at in left-wing circles if you suggested that Germany bore even a fraction of responsibility for the war. In all the denunciations of Versailles I listened to during those years I don’t think I ever once heard the question, ‘What would have happened if Germany had won?’ even mentioned, let alone discussed. So also with atrocities. The truth, it is felt, becomes untruth when your enemy utters it. Recently I noticed that the very people who swallowed any and every horror story about the Japanese in Nanking in 1937 refused to believe exactly the same stories about Hong Kong in 1942. There was even a tendency to feel that the Nanking atrocities had become, as it were retrospectively untrue because the British Government now drew attention to them.

But unfortunately the truth about atrocities is far worse than that they are lied about and made into propaganda. The truth is that they happen. The fact often adduced as a reason for scepticism – that the same horror stories come up in war after war – merely makes it rather more likely that these stories are true. Evidently they are widespread fantasies, and war provides an opportunity of putting them into practice. Also, although it has ceased to be fashionable to say so, there is little question that what one may roughly call the ‘whites’ commit far more and worse atrocities than the ‘reds’. There is not the slightest doubt, for instance, about the behaviour of the Japanese in China. Nor is there much doubt about the long tale of Fascist outrages during the last ten years in Europe. The volume of testimony is enormous, and a respectable proportion of it comes from the German press and radio. These things really happened, that is the thing to keep one’s eye on. They happened even though Lord Halifax said they happened. The raping and butchering in Chinese cities, the tortures in the cellars of the Gestapo, the elderly Jewish professors flung into cesspools, the machine-gunning of refugees along the Spanish roads – they all happened, and they did not happen any the less because the Daily Telegraph has suddenly found out about them when it is five years too late.

Two memories, the first not proving anything in particular, the second, I think, giving one a certain insight into the atmosphere of a revolutionary period:

Early one morning another man and I had gone out to snipe at the Fascists in the trenches outside Huesca. Their line and ours here lay three hundred yards apart, at which range our aged rifles would not shoot accurately, but by sneaking out to a spot about a hundred yards from the Fascist trench you might, if you were lucky, get a shot at someone through a gap in the parapet. Unfortunately the ground between was a flat beet-field with no cover except a few ditches, and it was necessary to go out while it was still dark and return soon after dawn, before the light became too good. This time no Fascists appeared, and we stayed too long and were caught by the dawn. We were in a ditch, but behind us were two hundred yards of flat ground with hardly enough cover for a rabbit. We were still trying to nerve ourselves to make a dash for it when there was an uproar and a blowing of whistles in the Fascist trench. Some of our aeroplanes were coming over. At this moment a man, presumably carrying a message to an officer, jumped out of the trench and ran along the top of the parapet in full view. He was half-dressed and was holding up his trousers with both hands as he ran. I refrained from shooting at him. It is true that I am a poor shot and unlikely to hit a running man at a hundred yards, and also that I was thinking chiefly about getting back to our trench while the Fascists had their attention fixed on the aeroplanes. Still, I did not shoot partly because of that detail about the trousers. I had come here to shoot at ‘Fascists’; but a man who is holding up his trousers isn’t a ‘Fascist’, he is visibly a fellow creature, similar to yourself, and you don’t feel like shooting at him.

What does this incident demonstrate? Nothing very much, because it is the kind of thing that happens all the time in all wars. The other is different. I don’t suppose that in telling it I can make it moving to you who read it, but I ask you to believe that it is moving to me, as an incident characteristic of the moral atmosphere of a particular moment in time.

One of the recruits who joined us while I was at the barracks was a wild-looking boy from the back streets of Barcelona. He was ragged and barefooted. He was also extremely dark (Arab blood, I dare say), and made gestures you do not usually see a European make; one in particular – the arm outstretched, the palm vertical – was a gesture characteristic of Indians. One day a bundle of cigars, which you could still buy dirt cheap at that time, was stolen out of my bunk. Rather foolishly I reported this to the officer, and one of the scallywags I have already mentioned promptly came forward and said quite untruly that twenty-five pesetas had been stolen from his bunk. For some reason the officer instantly decided that the brown-faced boy must be the thief. They were very hard on stealing in the militia, and in theory people could be shot for it. The wretched boy allowed himself to be led off to the guardroom to be searched. What most struck me was that he barely attempted to protest his innocence. In the fatalism of his attitude you could see the desperate poverty in which he had been bred. The officer ordered him to take his clothes off. With a humility which was horrible to me he stripped himself naked, and his clothes were searched. Of course neither the cigars nor the money were there; in fact he had not stolen them. What was most painful of all was that he seemed no less ashamed after his innocence had been established. That night I took him to the pictures and gave him brandy and chocolate. But that too was horrible – I mean the attempt to wipe out an injury with money. For a few minutes I had half believed him to be a thief, and that could not be wiped out.

Well, a few weeks later at the front I had trouble with one of the men in my section. By this time I was a ‘cabo’, or corporal, in command of twelve men. It was static warfare, horribly cold, and the chief job was getting sentries to stay awake at their posts. One day a man suddenly refused to go to a certain post, which he said quite truly was exposed to enemy fire. He was a feeble creature, and I seized hold of him and began to drag him towards his post. This roused the feelings of the others against me, for Spaniards, I think, resent being touched more than we do. Instantly I was surrounded by a ring of shouting men: ‘Fascist! Fascist! Let that man go! This isn’t a bourgeois army. Fascist!’ etc. etc. As best I could in my bad Spanish I shouted back that orders had got to be obeyed, and the row developed into one of those enormous arguments by means of which discipline is gradually hammered out in revolutionary armies. Some said I was right, others said I was wrong. But the point is that the one who took my side the most warmly of all was the brown-faced boy. As soon as he saw what was happening he sprang into the ring and began passionately defending me. With his strange, wild, Indian gesture he kept exclaiming, ‘He’s the best corporal we’ve got!’ ( ¡ No hay cabo como el! ) Later on he applied for leave to exchange into my section.

Why is this incident touching to me? Because in any normal circumstances it would have been impossible for good feelings ever to be re-established between this boy and myself. The implied accusation of theft would not have been made any better, probably somewhat worse, by my efforts to make amends. One of the effects of safe and civilized life is an immense oversensitiveness which makes all the primary emotions seem somewhat disgusting. Generosity is as painful as meanness, gratitude as hateful as ingratitude. But in Spain in 1936 we were not living in a normal time. It was a time when generous feelings and gestures were easier than they ordinarily are. I could relate a dozen similar incidents, not really communicable but bound up in my own mind with the special atmosphere of the time, the shabby clothes and the gay-coloured revolutionary posters, the universal use of the word ‘comrade’, the anti-Fascist ballads printed on flimsy paper and sold for a penny, the phrases like ‘international proletarian solidarity’, pathetically repeated by ignorant men who believed them to mean something. Could you feel friendly towards somebody, and stick up for him in a quarrel, after you had been ignominiously searched in his presence for property you were supposed to have stolen from him? No, you couldn’t; but you might if you had both been through some emotionally widening experience. That is one of the by-products of revolution, though in this case it was only the beginnings of a revolution, and obviously foredoomed to failure.

The struggle for power between the Spanish Republican parties is an unhappy, far-off thing which I have no wish to revive at this date. I only mention it in order to say: believe nothing, or next to nothing, of what you read about internal affairs on the Government side. It is all, from whatever source, party propaganda – that is to say, lies. The broad truth about the war is simple enough. The Spanish bourgeoisie saw their chance of crushing the labour movement, and took it, aided by the Nazis and by the forces of reaction all over the world. It is doubtful whether more than that will ever be established.

I remember saying once to Arthur Koestler, ‘History stopped in 1936’, at which he nodded in immediate understanding. We were both thinking of totalitarianism in general, but more particularly of the Spanish Civil War. Early in life I had noticed that no event is ever correctly reported in a newspaper, but in Spain, for the first time, I saw newspaper reports which did not bear any relation to the facts, not even the relationship which is implied in an ordinary lie. I saw great battles reported where there had been no fighting, and complete silence where hundreds of men had been killed. I saw troops who had fought bravely denounced as cowards and traitors, and others who had never seen a shot fired hailed as the heroes of imaginary victories, and I saw newspapers in London retailing these lies and eager intellectuals building emotional superstructures over events that had never happened. I saw, in fact, history being written not in terms of what happened but of what ought to have happened according to various ‘party lines’. Yet in a way, horrible as all this was, it was unimportant. It concerned secondary issues – namely, the struggle for power between the Comintern and the Spanish left-wing parties, and the efforts of the Russian Government to prevent revolution in Spain. But the broad picture of the war which the Spanish Government presented to the world was not untruthful. The main issues were what it said they were. But as for the Fascists and their backers, how could they come even as near to the truth as that? How could they possibly mention their real aims? Their version of the war was pure fantasy, and in the circumstances it could not have been otherwise.

The only propaganda line open to the Nazis and Fascists was to represent themselves as Christian patriots saving Spain from a Russian dictatorship. This involved pretending that life in Government Spain was just one long massacre ( vide the Catholic Herald or the Daily Mail – but these were child’s play compared with the continental Fascist press), and it involved immensely exaggerating the scale of Russian intervention. Out of the huge pyramid of lies which the Catholic and reactionary press all over the world built up, let me take just one point – the presence in Spain of a Russian army. Devout Franco partisans all believed in this; estimates of its strength went as high as half a million. Now, there was no Russian army in Spain. There may have been a handful of airmen and other technicians, a few hundred at the most, but an army there was not. Some thousands of foreigners who fought in Spain, not to mention millions of Spaniards, were witnesses of this. Well, their testimony made no impression at all upon the Franco propagandists, not one of whom had set foot in Government Spain. Simultaneously these people refused utterly to admit the fact of German or Italian intervention, at the same time as the Germany and Italian press were openly boasting about the exploits of their ‘legionaries’. I have chosen to mention only one point, but in fact the whole of Fascist propaganda about the war was on this level.

This kind of thing is frightening to me, because it often gives me the feeling that the very concept of objective truth is fading out of the world. After all, the chances are that those lies, or at any rate similar lies, will pass into history. How will the history of the Spanish war be written? If Franco remains in power his nominees will write the history books, and (to stick to my chosen point) that Russian army which never existed will become historical fact, and schoolchildren will learn about it generations hence. But suppose Fascism is finally defeated and some kind of democratic government restored in Spain in the fairly near future; even then, how is the history of the war to be written? What kind of records will Franco have left behind him? Suppose even that the records kept on the Government side are recoverable – even so, how is a true history of the war to be written? For, as I have pointed out already, the Government also dealt extensively in lies. From the anti-Fascist angle one could write a broadly truthful history of the war, but it would be a partisan history, unreliable on every minor point. Yet, after all, some kind of history will be written, and after those who actually remember the war are dead, it will be universally accepted. So for all practical purposes the lie will have become truth.

I know it is the fashion to say that most of recorded history is lies anyway. I am willing to believe that history is for the most part inaccurate and biased, but what is peculiar to our own age is the abandonment of the idea that history could be truthfully written. In the past people deliberately lied, or they unconsciously coloured what they wrote, or they struggled after the truth, well knowing that they must make many mistakes; but in each case they believed that ‘the facts’ existed and were more or less discoverable. And in practice there was always a considerable body of fact which would have been agreed to by almost everyone. If you look up the history of the last war in, for instance, the Encyclopaedia Britannica , you will find that a respectable amount of the material is drawn from German sources. A British and a German historian would disagree deeply on many things, even on fundamentals, but there would still be that body of, as it were, neutral fact on which neither would seriously challenge the other. It is just this common basis of agreement, with its implication that human beings are all one species of animal, that totalitarianism destroys. Nazi theory indeed specifically denies that such a thing as ‘the truth’ exists. There is, for instance, no such thing as ‘science’. There is only ‘German science’, ‘Jewish science’ etc. The implied objective of this line of thought is a nightmare world in which the Leader, or some ruling clique, controls not only the future but the past . If the Leader says of such and such an event, ‘It never happened’ – well, it never happened. If he says that two and two are five – well, two and two are five. This prospect frightens me much more than bombs – and after our experiences of the last few years that is not a frivolous statement.

But is it perhaps childish or morbid to terrify oneself with visions of a totalitarian future? Before writing off the totalitarian world as a nightmare that can’t come true, just remember that in 1925 the world of today would have seemed a nightmare that couldn’t come true. Against that shifting phantasmagoric world in which black may be white tomorrow and yesterday’s weather can be changed by decree, there are in reality only two safeguards. One is that however much you deny the truth, the truth goes on existing, as it were, behind your back, and you consequently can’t violate it in ways that impair military efficiency. The other is that so long as some parts of the earth remain unconquered, the liberal tradition can be kept alive. Let Fascism, or possibly even a combination of several Fascisms, conquer the whole world, and those two conditions no longer exist. We in England underrate the danger of this kind of thing, because our traditions and our past security have given us a sentimental belief that it all comes right in the end and the thing you most fear never really happens. Nourished for hundreds of years on a literature in which Right invariably triumphs in the last chapter, we believe half-instinctively that evil always defeats itself in the long run. Pacifism, for instance, is founded largely on this belief. Don’t resist evil, and it will somehow destroy itself. But why should it? What evidence is there that it does? And what instance is there of a modern industrialized state collapsing unless conquered from the outside by military force?

Consider for instance the re-institution of slavery. Who could have imagined twenty years ago that slavery would return to Europe? Well, slavery has been restored under our noses. The forced-labour camps all over Europe and North Africa where Poles, Russians, Jews and political prisoners of every race toil at road-making or swamp-draining for their bare rations, are simple chattle slavery. The most one can say is that the buying and selling of slaves by individuals is not yet permitted. In other ways – the breaking-up of families, for instance – the conditions are probably worse than they were on the American cotton plantations. There is no reason for thinking that this state of affairs will change while any totalitarian domination endures. We don’t grasp its full implications, because in our mystical way we feel that a régime founded on slavery must collapse. But it is worth comparing the duration of the slave empires of antiquity with that of any modern state. Civilizations founded on slavery have lasted for such periods as four thousand years.

When I think of antiquity, the detail that frightens me is that those hundreds of millions of slaves on whose backs civilization rested generation after generation have left behind them no record whatever. We do not even know their names. In the whole of Greek and Roman history, how many slaves’ names are known to you? I can think of two, or possibly three. One is Spartacus and the other is Epictetus . Also, in the Roman room at the British Museum there is a glass jar with the maker’s name inscribed on the bottom, ‘ Felix fecit ’. I have a vivid mental picture of poor Felix (a Gaul with red hair and a metal collar round his neck), but in fact he may not have been a slave; so there are only two slaves whose names I definitely know, and probably few people can remember more. The rest have gone down into utter silence.

The backbone of the resistance against Franco was the Spanish working class, especially the urban trade union members. In the long run – it is important to remember that it is only in the long run – the working class remains the most reliable enemy of Fascism, simply because the working class stands to gain most by a decent reconstruction of society. Unlike other classes or categories, it can’t be permanently bribed.

To say this is not to idealize the working class. In the long struggle that has followed the Russian Revolution it is the manual workers who have been defeated, and it is impossible not to feel that it was their own fault. Time after time, in country after country, the organized working-class movements have been crushed by open, illegal violence, and their comrades abroad, linked to them in theoretical solidarity, have simply looked on and done nothing; and underneath this, secret cause of many betrayals, has lain the fact that between white and coloured workers there is not even lip-service to solidarity. Who can believe in the class-conscious international proletariat after the events of the past ten years? To the British working class the massacre of their comrades in Vienna, Berlin, Madrid, or wherever it might be, seemed less interesting and less important than yesterday’s football match. Yet this does not alter the fact that the working class will go on struggling against Fascism after the others have caved in. One feature of the Nazi conquest of France was the astonishing defections among the intelligentsia, including some of the left-wing political intelligentsia. The intelligentsia are the people who squeal loudest against Fascism, and yet a respectable proportion of them collapse into defeatism when the pinch comes. They are far-sighted enough to see the odds against them, and moreoever they can be bribed – for it is evident that the Nazis think it worth while to bribe intellectuals. With the working class it is the other way about. Too ignorant to see through the trick that is being played on them, they easily swallow the promises of Fascism, yet sooner or later they always take up the struggle again. They must do so, because in their own bodies they always discover that the promises of Fascism cannot be fulfilled. To win over the working class permanently, the Fascists would have to raise the general standard of living, which they are unable and probably unwilling to do. The struggle of the working class is like the growth of a plant. The plant is blind and stupid, but it knows enough to keep pushing upwards towards the light, and it will do this in the face of endless discouragements. What are the workers struggling for? Simply for the decent life which they are more and more aware is now technically possible. Their consciousness of this aim ebbs and flows. In Spain, for a while, people were acting consciously, moving towards a goal which they wanted to reach and believed they could reach. It accounted for the curiously buoyant feeling that life in Government Spain had during the early months of the war. The common people knew in their bones that the Republic was their friend and Franco was their enemy. They knew that they were in the right, because they were fighting for something which the world owed them and was able to give them.

One has to remember this to see the Spanish war in its true perspective. When one thinks of the cruelty, squalor, and futility of war – and in this particular case of the intrigues, the persecutions, the lies and the misunderstandings – there is always the temptation to say: ‘One side is as bad as the other. I am neutral’. In practice, however, one cannot be neutral, and there is hardly such a thing as a war in which it makes no difference who wins. Nearly always one stands more or less for progress, the other side more or less for reaction. The hatred which the Spanish Republic excited in millionaires, dukes, cardinals, play-boys, Blimps, and what-not would in itself be enough to show one how the land lay. In essence it was a class war. If it had been won, the cause of the common people everywhere would have been strengthened. It was lost, and the dividend-drawers all over the world rubbed their hands. That was the real issue; all else was froth on its surface.

The outcome of the Spanish war was settled in London, Paris, Rome, Berlin – at any rate not in Spain. After the summer of 1937 those with eyes in their heads realized that the Government could not win the war unless there were some profound change in the international set-up, and in deciding to fight on Negrin and the others may have been partly influenced by the expectation that the world war which actually broke out in 1939 was coming in 1938. The much-publicized disunity on the Government side was not a main cause of defeat. The Government militias were hurriedly raised, ill-armed and unimaginative in their military outlook, but they would have been the same if complete political agreement had existed from the start. At the outbreak of war the average Spanish factory-worker did not even know how to fire a rifle (there had never been universal conscription in Spain), and the traditional pacifism of the Left was a great handicap. The thousands of foreigners who served in Spain made good infantry, but there were very few experts of any kind among them. The Trotskyist thesis that the war could have been won if the revolution had not been sabotaged was probably false. To nationalize factories, demolish churches, and issue revolutionary manifestoes would not have made the armies more efficient. The Fascists won because they were the stronger; they had modern arms and the others hadn’t. No political strategy could offset that.

The most baffling thing in the Spanish war was the behaviour of the great powers. The war was actually won for Franco by the Germans and Italians, whose motives were obvious enough. The motives of France and Britain are less easy to understand. In 1936 it was clear to everyone that if Britain would only help the Spanish Government, even to the extent of a few million pounds’ worth of arms, Franco would collapse and German strategy would be severely dislocated. By that time one did not need to be a clairvoyant to foresee that war between Britain and Germany was coming; one could even foretell within a year or two when it would come. Yet in the most mean, cowardly, hypocritical way the British ruling class did all they could to hand Spain over to Franco and the Nazis. Why? Because they were pro-Fascist, was the obvious answer. Undoubtedly they were, and yet when it came to the final showdown they chose to stand up to Germany. It is still very uncertain what plan they acted on in backing Franco, and they may have had no clear plan at all. Whether the British ruling class are wicked or merely stupid is one of the most difficult questions of our time, and at certain moments a very important question. As to the Russians, their motives in the Spanish war are completely inscrutable. Did they, as the pinks believed, intervene in Spain in order to defend democracy and thwart the Nazis? Then why did they intervene on such a niggardly scale and finally leave Spain in the lurch? Or did they, as the Catholics maintained, intervene in order to foster revolution in Spain? Then why did they do all in their power to crush the Spanish revolutionary movements, defend private property and hand power to the middle class as against the working class? Or did they, as the Trotskyists suggested, intervene simply in order to prevent a Spanish revolution? Then why not have backed Franco? Indeed, their actions are most easily explained if one assumes that they were acting on several contradictory motives. I believe that in the future we shall come to feel that Stalin’s foreign policy, instead of being so diabolically clever as it is claimed to be, has been merely opportunistic and stupid. But at any rate, the Spanish Civil War demonstrated that the Nazis knew what they were doing and their opponents did not. The war was fought at a low technical level and its major strategy was very simple. That side which had arms would win. The Nazis and the Italians gave arms to their Spanish Fascist friends, and the western democracies and the Russians didn’t give arms to those who should have been their friends. So the Spanish Republic perished, having ‘gained what no republic missed’.

Whether it was right, as all left-wingers in other countries undoubtedly did, to encourage the Spaniards to go on fighting when they could not win is a question hard to answer. I myself think it was right, because I believe that it is better even from the point of view of survival to fight and be conquered than to surrender without fighting. The effects on the grand strategy of the struggle against Fascism cannot be assessed yet. The ragged, weaponless armies of the Republic held out for two and a half years, which was undoubtedly longer than their enemies expected. But whether that dislocated the Fascist timetable, or whether, on the other hand, it merely postponed the major war and gave the Nazis extra time to get their war machine into trim, is still uncertain.

I never think of the Spanish war without two memories coming into my mind. One is of the hospital ward at Lerida and the rather sad voices of the wounded militiamen singing some song with a refrain that ended:

‘Una resolucion, Luchar hast’ al fin!’

Well, they fought to the end all right. For the last eighteen months of the war the Republican armies must have been fighting almost without cigarettes, and with precious little food. Even when I left Spain in the middle of 1937, meat and bread were scarce, tobacco a rarity, coffee and sugar almost unobtainable.

The other memory is of the Italian militiaman who shook my hand in the guardroom, the day I joined the militia. I wrote about this man at the beginning of my book on the Spanish war, and do not want to repeat what I said there. When I remember – oh, how vividly! – his shabby uniform and fierce, pathetic, innocent face, the complex side-issues of the war seem to fade away and I see clearly that there was at any rate no doubt as to who was in the right. In spite of power politics and journalistic lying, the central issue of the war was the attempt of people like this to win the decent life which they knew to be their birthright. It is difficult to think of this particular man’s probable end without several kinds of bitterness. Since I met him in the Lenin Barracks he was probably a Trotskyist or an Anarchist, and in the peculiar conditions of our time, when people of that sort are not killed by the Gestapo they are usually killed by the G.P.U. But that does not affect the long-term issues. This man’s face, which I saw only for a minute or two, remains with me as a sort of visual reminder of what the war was really about. He symbolizes for me the flower of the European working class, harried by the police of all countries, the people who fill the mass graves of the Spanish battlefields and are now, to the tune of several millions, rotting in forced-labour camps.

When one thinks of all the people who support or have supported Fascism, one stands amazed at their diversity. What a crew! Think of a programme which at any rate for a while could bring Hitler, Pétain , Montagu Norman , Pavelitch , William Randolph Hearst , Streicher , Buchman , Ezra Pound , Juan March , Cocteau , Thyssen , Father Coughlin , the Mufti of Jerusalem , Arnold Lunn , Antonescu , Spengler , Beverley Nichols , Lady Houston , and Marinetti all into the same boat! But the clue is really very simple. They are all people with something to lose, or people who long for a hierarchical society and dread the prospect of a world of free and equal human beings. Behind all the ballyhoo that is talked about ‘godless’ Russia and the ‘materialism’ of the working class lies the simple intention of those with money or privileges to cling to them. Ditto, though it contains a partial truth, with all the talk about the worthlessness of social reconstruction not accompanied by a ‘change of heart’. The pious ones, from the Pope to the yogis of California, are great on the ‘changes of heart’, much more reassuring from their point of view than a change in the economic system. Pétain attributes the fall of France to the common people’s ‘love of pleasure’. One sees this in its right perspective if one stops to wonder how much pleasure the ordinary French peasant’s or working-man’s life would contain compared with Pétain’s own. The damned impertinence of these politicians, priests, literary men, and what not who lecture the working-class Socialist for his ‘materialism’! All that the working man demands is what these others would consider the indispensable minimum without which human life cannot be lived at all. Enough to eat, freedom from the haunting terror of unemployment, the knowledge that your children will get a fair chance, a bath once a day, clean linen reasonably often, a roof that doesn’t leak, and short enough working hours to leave you with a little energy when the day is done. Not one of those who preach against ‘materialism’ would consider life livable without these things. And how easily that minimum could be attained if we chose to set our minds to it for only twenty years! To raise the standard of living of the whole world to that of Britain would not be a greater undertaking than the war we are now fighting. I don’t claim, and I don’t know who does, that that wouldn’t solve anything in itself. It is merely that privation and brute labour have to be abolished before the real problems of humanity can be tackled. The major problem of our time is the decay of the belief in personal immortality, and it cannot be dealt with while the average human being is either drudging like an ox or shivering in fear of the secret police. How right the working classes are in their ‘materialism’! How right they are to realize that the belly comes before the soul, not in the scale of values but in point of time! Understand that, and the long horror that we are enduring becomes at least intelligible. All the considerations that are likely to make one falter – the siren voices of a Pétain or of a Gandhi, the inescapable fact that in order to fight one has to degrade oneself, the equivocal moral position of Britain, with its democratic phrases and its coolie empire, the sinister development of Soviet Russia, the squalid farce of left-wing politics – all this fades away and one sees only the struggle of the gradually awakening common people against the lords of property and their hired liars and bumsuckers. The question is very simple. Shall people like that Italian soldier be allowed to live the decent, fully human life which is now technically achievable, or shan’t they? Shall the common man be pushed back into the mud, or shall he not? I myself believe, perhaps on insufficient grounds, that the common man will win his fight sooner or later, but I want it to be sooner and not later – some time within the next hundred years, say, and not some time within the next ten thousand years. That was the real issue of the Spanish war, and of the present war, and perhaps of other wars yet to come.

I never saw the Italian militiaman again, nor did I ever learn his name. It can be taken as quite certain that he is dead. Nearly two years later, when the war was visibly lost, I wrote these verses in his memory:

The Italian soldier shook my hand Beside the guard-room table; The strong hand and the subtle hand Whose palms are only able

To meet within the sound of guns, But oh! what peace I knew then In gazing on his battered face Purer than any woman’s!

For the flyblown words that make me spew Still in his ears were holy, And he was born knowing what I had learned Out of books and slowly.

The treacherous guns had told their tale And we both had bought it, But my gold brick was made of gold – Oh! who ever would have thought it?

Good luck go with you, Italian soldier! But luck is not for the brave; What would the world give back to you? Always less than you gave.

Between the shadow and the ghost, Between the white and the red, Between the bullet and the lie, Where would you hide your head?

For where is Manuel Gonzalez, And where is Pedro Aguilar, And where is Ramon Fenellosa? The earthworms know where they are.

Your name and your deeds were forgotten Before your bones were dry, And the lie that slew you is buried Under a deeper lie;

But the thing that I saw in your face No power can disinherit: No bomb that ever burst Shatters the crystal spirit.

Written August 1942, Sections I, II, III, and VII printed in New Road , June 1943

• It's Not Your Fault - Katie Sherley
• Research! A Resource by Sujana Crawford
• On Keeping a Time Capsule - Jennifer Yang

We use cookies. By browsing our site you agree to our use of cookies. Accept

We use cookies to enhance our website for you. Proceed if you agree to this policy or learn more about it.

• Essay Database >
• Essay Examples >
• Essays Topics >
• Essay on Europe

A Discussion Of The Spanish Civil War Research Paper

Type of paper: Research Paper

Topic: Europe , Nation , Democracy , War , Spain , Civil War , Monarchy , Politics

Words: 2250

Published: 01/24/2020

ORDER PAPER LIKE THIS

Introduction The Spanish Civil War is among the most significant domestic conflicts in history that has gained notorious international attention due to its wide-ranging implications. International involvement has become a defining feature of the importance of the war, although more importantly, the war has exposed the political division in Spain at that time – between the Republicans and the victorious Nationalists. This study will seek to inquire more on the essential details of the war, particularly on its historical antecedents and international involvement.

Historical Antecedents

The Spanish Civil War traces its roots on the traditionalist politics of Spain, which has given it a growth pattern different to that of other European nations. The dominance of the aristocracy in Spain characterized the strong traditionalist inclination of politics in the peninsula, particularly its strong association with the Catholic Church and its legacy of ousting radical forces such as the Moors and the Jews. The monarchy of Spain did not seek to consolidate coalitions with the middle class. Rather, it chose to collaborate with the aristocrats, with their partnership being instrumental to hindering the proliferation of Spanish middle class populations. Industries, including that of Castilian textile, did not flourish due to the dissuasion of the monarchy-aristocracy partnership, as it subjugated the powers of the parliament – another avenue of propagation by the middle class. In turn, the lack of middle class groups disabled the further propagation of movements that became successful elsewhere in Europe, most notable the Reformation. The marginalization of the middle class in Spain meant lesser opportunities for state modernization. The traditionalist stance of politics in Spain run by the monarchy and aristocrats extended further to the 18th century, when attempts to introduce the Enlightenment in the nation failed due to its ideological foundations that stood against nobility. Revolutions akin to liberal ideals did not thrive in the nation and its contingents faced heavy defeats under the hands of Spanish forces. Liberalism thus did not settle in the nation, which resulted to declining economic growth due to lack of innovations that could have come from liberal policies. Traditional solutions to economic decline, such as the sale of church lands, proved inadequate in the face of growing demands from both the domestic population and international markets. Illiteracy caused by the continued domination of both the monarchy and the aristocracy disabled the potential domestic development of liberalism, hence the sluggish economic growth of the nation. Labor continued as the primary means of production in the nation due to the lack of machines coming from liberal reforms vehemently rejected by the traditionalist setup. The continued dominance of the traditionalists in Spain hampered potential avenues for economic growth. The absence of a sizeable middle class population, rejection of land reform, mechanization of production and other liberal policies, the sustained dominance of the Catholic Church and the strong intervention of the military in political affairs all factored in as laggards of economic growth in the nation. Yet, the victory of the republican faction following the deposal of the traditionalist dictator General Miguel Primo de Rivera served as a brief victory for liberalism in the nation. Republican ideologies, with their liberal nature, may have seemed to be catalysts for reforms in the nation, yet its inheritance of a system with deep roots on traditionalism provided difficulties for the Second Republic, despite patterning its agenda on the French Revolution with an attempt to focus on improving social equality. Yet, the failure of the Second Republic to fulfill its promise of economic growth alongside its liberalizing reforms has heralded eventual opposition from the Spanish people, particularly from the Catholics. While many preferred to give the new regime a chance to introduce changes, its failure to do so has reawakened traditionalist attitudes. The introduction of freedom of religion has provoked much of the Catholic population. Attempts to remove political influence off the military have stirred turmoil that provoked the onset of the Spanish Civil War. Such efforts, led by Prime Minister Manuel Azaña, prompted the military to issue a pronunciamiento or a declaration of a coup d’état against the government. While early attempts to stage a revolution failed, it nevertheless served as a precedent that spurred the inevitable commencement of the Spanish Civil War.

The Onset of the War

The Spanish Civil War escalated as a series of conflicts in different parts of Spain fought between forces loyal to the Republic (Republicans) led by Azaña and the military (Nationalists) led by General Francisco Franco. The first recorded event pointed as the beginning of the war happened in July 14, 1936, the day of assassination of right-wing parliament leader Jose Sotelo. Rebellions across the nation have become sporadic afterwards, with battles reported in Valencia, Valladolid, Cadiz, Spanish Morocco, Burgos and Seville, among others. On July 20, the Second Republic responded to the attacks by charging all military officers involved in the coup d’état with treason, alongside the establishment of martial law. The conflict between the two sides provoked international involvement when foreign vessels off Spanish coasts suffered interferences from the ongoing conflicts. Despite non-intervention agreements binding Nazi Germany and Fascist Italy, there are findings pointing that their residents have assisted the insurgent Nationalists logistically, in the form of military supplies and labor. Yet, both nations have denied accusations. Portugal, a nation that did not express inhibition from intervention, contributed significantly to the insurgents by offering its ports as importation points for their supplies. All of the foregoing nations have thus contributed to insurgency efforts despite recognizing the Second Republic as the de jure government of Spain in the early periods of the conflict. Thus, all those three nations have rendered assistance to the insurgents unjustified under international law. Whereas Germany, Italy and Portugal stood as among the powers that intervened during the Spanish Civil War, the United States (US) – a significant power during that time, declared that they would practice impartiality over the situation and it will thus not interfere with any party in the war. Yet, the US exported airplanes for use by the Nationalists, despite recognizing its will to observe non-interference on the ongoing conflict. The Neutrality Act of 1935 did not apply to cases involving civil war, although the US expressed slight reluctance over exporting the airplanes to Spain in line with its perceived position. The Spanish Civil War also became an influential event to the proponents of the Second World War. The victory of the fascist Nationalists further bolstered the position of Italy as an ally of Germany. Adolf Hitler, the leader of Germany, saw the victory as one that could further consolidate his motives to dominate Europe with his Nazi ideology. With its alliance with Italy strengthened, Germany was able to occupy Austria easily, although his planned conquest of Czechoslovakia met a standstill due to the absence of Mussolini in Italy, who was then in Spain to assist the cause of the Nationalists. Such move enabled Hitler to declare Western powers Great Britain and France as enemies, with both democracies having declared dissent over his and Mussolini’s actions. In sum, the war in Spain helped aggravate the crisis between the European powers, which ultimately escalated into the Second World War. The war, which ended in April 1, 1939, cost the lives of an estimated 500,000 people and around the same number of injured.

The Impact of the War

The Spanish Civil War has gained notoriety due to its wide-ranging effects, despite being a domestic conflict that has originated within a minor power of the time. It has influenced literary authors, who created works based on their experiences and accounts of the war. Ernest Hemingway, for instance, has expressed his views on the war in many of his literary works. In his article “Dying Well or Badly,” Hemingway criticized the support given by the democracies to the fascist Nationalists, in which he said, “they will deserve whatever fate brings them” for assisting the forces led by Franco. He made clear his stance on fascism in “The Writer and War,” in which he described it as the “only one form of government that cannot produce good writers” Women have become empowered by the war, during which they gained increasing exposure in activism and political representation. Federica Montseny and Victoria Kent are among those women elected to parliament, while the likes of Maria Del Maetzu and Dolores Ibarruri gained prominence in the field of politics and literature. Democracy, a system that did not find stable imposition in Spain, has inspired authors so much to the extent that they heralded it as an important “memory” of the past. The war resembled an event that threatened a crucial period that served as a precursor to the nation’s democratic transition. Democracy, in this case, has become one perceived as having no real appeal to the Spanish people. The strength of traditionalism apparent with the victory of the Nationalists in the war reflected that people still prefer to associate themselves with symbols pertaining to royalty, religion or anything reminiscent of traditionalist thought. Yet overall, the war contributed to the further enlightenment of the people. Despite the denial of democracy under the victory of the fascist Nationalists, the war empowered the Spanish people towards becoming more active in civic affairs, far from their dormant side reminiscent to that of their historical identity as a people subjugated under the control of the monarchy-aristocracy partnership. The violence that the war brought, however, stands as a more unforgettable aspect of the war in terms of remembering it in terms of the importance of democracy.

The Spanish Civil War is an event that reflects how a nation could become highly cynical of democracy. The upbringing of Spain as a nation wrought in traditionalist aspects has made it seemingly closed-minded on matters concerning change. The dominance of the monarchy and aristocracy has characterized a suitable historical background to the war, which is one that helped restore traditionalism in the nation through the influence of an emerging ideology at the time – fascism. The victory of fascism in the Spanish Civil War is one that is easily predictable, if one is to look at the sociopolitical and historical profile of Spain critically. The appeal of fascism has enabled calls at that time to return the order of the “true” Spain, allegedly removed by the emergent democratization of the state by the then-ruling Second Republic. The war reflected that during its time, the Spanish people are not yet prepared to embrace what the rest of their contemporaries in Western Europe has accepted – liberalism and democratization. Whereas nations like France and Great Britain have incorporated those two ideals in their own ways, Spain has emanated manifestations of its preference towards its traditionalist convention. The formation of a formidable middle class, for example, is one that has affected the failure of those two ideals to spread. With the monarchy and its aristocrat allies suppressing the growth of middle class movements in several occasions, democratic virtues and liberal thinking did not match up to the massive support enjoyed by institutions such as the Catholic Church, military and all others closely associated to the power of the monarchy-aristocracy alliance. Yet, at the same time, the legacy of the war proved to be a mere setback, as Spain eventually opened itself up to the auspices of democratic and liberal thought. Thus, one could construe the war as an event that has strengthened the position of democracy in the history of the nation. Its impact on influencing the Second World War stands strong, as the involvement of notable proponents such as Germany and Italy used such event to increase their political and ideological advantage in Europe. Hitler and Mussolini used the war to legitimize their political positions by way of rendering assistance, despite the fact that they ran counter to certain principles under international law.

Bibliography

Aguilar, Paloma, and Carsten Humlebaek. “Collective Memory and National Identity in the Spanish Democracy.” History & Memory 14, no. 1/2 (2002): 121-164. Finch, George. “The United States and the Spanish Civil War.” The American Journal of International Law 31, no. 1 (1937): 74-81. Frank, Willard, Jr. “The Spanish Civil War and the Coming of the Second World War.” The International History Review 9, no. 3 (1987): 368-409. Garner, James. “Questions of International Law in the Spanish Civil War.” The American Journal of International Law 31, no. 1 (1937): 66-73. Graham, Helen. “The Spanish Civil War, 1936-2003: The Return of Republican Memory.” Science & Society 68, no. 3 (2004): 313-328. Jackson, Gabriel. “Multiple Historic Meanings of the Spanish Civil War.” Science & Society 68, no. 3 (2004): 272-276. Mangini, Shirley. “Memories of Resistance: Women Activists from the Spanish Civil War.” Signs 17, no. 1 (1991): 171-186. Molesworth, Charles. “Hemingway's Code: The Spanish Civil War and World Power.” Salmagundi 76/77 (1988): 84-100. Padelford, Norman. “International Law and the Spanish Civil War.” The American Journal of International Law 31, no. 2 (1937): 226-243. Padelford, Norman. “The International Non-Intervention Agreement and the Spanish Civil War.” The American Journal of International Law 31, no. 4 (1937): 578-603. Preston, Paul. “Alfonsist Monarchism and the Coming of the Spanish Civil War.” Journal of Contemporary History 7, no. 3/4 (1972): 89-114. Richards, Michael. “From War Culture to Civil Society.” History & Memory 14, no. 1/2 (2002): 93-120. Sanders, David. “Ernest Hemingway's Spanish Civil War Experience.” American Quarterly 12, no. 2, Part 1 (1960): 133-143. Seidman, Michael. Republic of Egos: A Social History of the Spanish Civil War. Madison, WI: University of Wisconsin Press, 2002. Seidman, Michael. Victorious Counterrevolution: The Nationalist Effort in the Spanish Civil War. Madison, WI: University of Wisconsin Press, 2011.

Cite this page

Share with friends using:

Removal Request

Finished papers: 2266

This paper is created by writer with

ID 287477145

If you want your paper to be:

Well-researched, fact-checked, and accurate

Original, fresh, based on current data

Eloquently written and immaculately formatted

275 words = 1 page double-spaced

Get your papers done by pros!

Other Pages

Jargon term papers, message term papers, drivers term papers, pricing reports, speakerphone essays, verve essays, thistle essays, walnut essays, apse essays, workhorse essays, scombroid essays, intact essays, code of federal regulations essays, food and drug administration essays, analgesics essays, nsaids essays, noradrenaline essays, exhaustive essays, rapport essays, social isolation essays, regain essays, health crisis essays, research paper on hygiene and infection in hospitals, example of course work on vulnerable populations, free essay on ergonomics, press portfolio part 2 essay sample, essay on narrowed issue problem the problem of obesity in america, intergovernmentalism and the role of argumentative essay sample, world system analysis essay examples, good update of the u s tourism policy case study example, critical thinking on the anasazi, good example of essay on land conservation issues policies and the environment in america, attributes of relationship based and patient centered care in advanced nursing practice essay sample, example of effect of a quota on consumer and producer surplus critical thinking, free hpc case study essay sample, statistics essay 2, good essay about global tourism, free essay about the issue of population in the hospitality industry, good example of essay on attracting tourists in the protected area, good example of term paper on past papers, good essay about big five personality types, example of wal mart sociocultural environment essay, the economic implications of climate change research papers examples.

Password recovery email has been sent to [email protected]

Use your new password to log in

You are not register!

By clicking Register, you agree to our Terms of Service and that you have read our Privacy Policy .

Now you can download documents directly to your device!

Check your email! An email with your password has already been sent to you! Now you can download documents directly to your device.

or Use the QR code to Save this Paper to Your Phone

The sample is NOT original!

Short on a deadline?

Don't waste time. Get help with 11% off using code - GETWOWED

No, thanks! I'm fine with missing my deadline