The Spanish Civil War is often perceived as a conflict between two antithetical ideologies, the principal narratives of the war focusing on it as a clash between communism and fascism and as a struggle between democracy and dictatorship. In the same way that most wars are depicted, the Spanish Civil War can be seen to have been fought by two sides against one another: those supporting the Republican aims against those whose sympathies lay with the Francoist cause. However, it seems simplistic to consequently see the Spanish Civil War as being fought by two sides which represented two distinct and opposing ideologies. Although it is undeniable that ideology factored in the Spanish Civil War, it is overly simplistic to compartmentalize what the war represented into binary categories based around two defined and distinct ideologies. Rather, in moving away from the reductive depiction of the Spanish Civil War as a clash between two distinct ideologies pitted against each other, a more nuanced picture of the war is formed which accounts for the multiplicity of experience and the numerous, often conflicting reasons for why people fought, even when on the ‘same’ side. Furthermore, the notion of the civil war being a clash of ideologies itself is not entirely accurate since, even where there may appear to be superficial uniformity and conformity to an ideology, often there is great difference on the ground. In this essay, various ideologies which had prominence during the Spanish Civil War will be considered, as will the problems with the notion that this war was a clash of ideologies, before ultimately reaching the conclusion that the Spanish Civil War was too fragmented, or ‘splintered’, an experience, for it to be a clash of two clearly defined ideologies.
That the Spanish Civil War was not a clash of ideologies is evident when one considers that the political Left was greatly split and divided, both before and during the war, which suggests they were not subscribing to one coherent ideology, which was then pitted against another distinct opposing ideology. Helen Graham posits that from the beginning of the war, the political Left had to tackle the great ideological differences between the different groupings, the widest one being between the parliamentary socialist movement and the anti-parliamentary anarcho-syndicalist CNT. Moreover, Graham identifies the origins of these ideological differences as having emerged from the different political, economic and cultural experiences that the Left’s social constituencies experienced, occurring as a result of Spain’s uneven development. Moreover, although the political Right are seen to have been a more homogenous and ideologically aligned grouping, it is important to point out that often, like the political Left, there were internal tensions and divisions regarding the course of their action. As Graham fascinatingly points out, perhaps the divisions of the political Left were more visible against the democratic backdrop which underpinned the Republican cause, making the Left seem more divided, in contrast to the apparent rebel unity created through dictatorial techniques. As just mentioned, the tensions between the various Republican groupings, as well as within those supporting Franco, were often ideological in nature. Although this may appear to indicate that the Republican side, in particular, was itself a clash of ideologies, which is true to some extent, this is not the crux of the question. As the focus of the question is on whether the Spanish Civil War can be considered a clash of ideologies, rather than its two constituent parts, any clashing ideologies within either the Republic or Francoist side do not affirm the question’s proposition. Moreover, it is also important to bear in mind that tensions within the different political grouping was often due to practical reasons, as much as ideological ones. For example, the military coup d’état of July 1936, which is too often assumed to be a strong ideological statement against social change and the loss of imperial dominance, was just as much motivated by pragmatic reasons. For example, there were practical issues, regarding salary and career prospects which Republican reforms would curtail, which prompted army officers into action. To continue, when considering the practical reasons for disunity, often the focus necessarily shifts from internal pressures to external ones. As Graham highlights, disunity in Republican Spain was less an internal problem, centred on ideology, but more a product of the cumulatively negative effects of the Non-Intervention Agreement, frequent military defeat and the increasing depletion of Republican morale and resources. Therefore, regarding the Spanish Civil War as a clash of ideologies between two distinct and opposite principles is flawed, as doing so fails to acknowledge the practical reasons for involvement, as explored in the internal examples above.
Furthermore, on an external level, it would also be naïve to regard the international involvement of powers such as the Soviet Union, Nazi Germany and Italy as solely motivated by ideological aims, which suggests that pragmatism affected external players too. In fact, often ideological claims related to their intervention in the Spanish Civil War were no more than a smokescreen for their tactical and strategic diplomatic moves. For example, Smyth highlights the importance of France to both the Soviet Union and Nazi Germany as a reason to intervene in the Spanish Civil War. Whilst both Stalin and Hitler moved to action by fear of their ideological other (fascism or communism respectively), ultimately, what they were most concerned by was France’s strategic position. Moreover, this can be seen explicitly in the case of Britain, who not only refused assistance to the Republicans, but also actively obstructed their cause, for example through refusing to allow their navy to refuel in Tangier or Gibraltar. Indeed, that Britain hoped for a quick rebel victory, as the best defence of capital and private property in Spain, and thus as a means of protecting its imperialist interests, demonstrates how pragmatic interests were more important to the British than the importance of maintaining democracy. Regarding the involvement of foreign powers, the most convincing arguments are those which stress both ideological and tactical motivations for becoming involved in the Spanish Civil War, with D. Smyth, for instance, seeing German intervention as a mixture of ideological and tactical anti-Communism. Therefore, regardless of the extent to which pragmatic reasons motivated foreign leaders to involve themselves, it seems evident that intervention in the Spanish Civil War was not chosen for solely ideological reasons. The involvement of foreign powers in the Spanish Civil War, on the basis of ideology, has long been used as evidence that a clash of ideologies characterised the war, and was not restricted to Spain’s borders, demonstrating the worldwide import of these ideologies. Therefore, in questioning the motives for foreign involvement in the war, it seems evident that characterising the Spanish Civil War as a clash of ideologies is short-sighted.
In addition, it is more accurate to see the Spanish Civil War as an eruption of existing tensions, or as a “melting pot of universal battles”, which the First World War accelerated, rather than as a distinct clash between two individual ideologies. For example, as Graham suggests, the Spanish Civil War provided a space for a series of culture wars, which began after the military coup d’état but which had their origins in the pre-war period. The Spanish Civil War was a microcosm for the cultural wars happening across Europe, in which there were common existing tensions, for instance, between secularism and religion; between rural tradition and cosmopolitan modernity etc. Therefore, by concentrating on the various cultural tensions which were being expressed on the battleground of the Spanish Civil War, the war seems more like an amalgam of various existing tensions, rather than as a conflict with a strict, binary ideological edge. To give an example, ordinary citizens in the Republican territory were moved to violence as a reaction to the rebels’ attempts to rewind time by force and restore old regime order. Therefore, they directed their violence against the pillars and perpetuators of this old power, which explains the extensive and highly symbolic, anti-clerical violence which was witnessed in this period. That religion was a base factor of various European conflicts and that a struggle between clericalism and anti-clericalism had historical roots, thus demonstrates that the Spanish Civil War did not have a distinct, novel ideological intensity, but rather was one example of these existing tensions erupting in a large-scale fashion. Although, according to Casanova, this secular-religious struggle was most intensely expressed in Spanish society in the 1930s, the fact remains that this conflict had existing tensions which were common across Europe and were not confined to one particular ideology, which explains the link between post-coup violence and pre-war conflicts. In addition, the participation of International Brigadiers, which is often seen as evidence for a symbolic commitment to fighting for democracy against fascism, can also be contextualised in this pre-war European environment, which thus reduces the ideological aspect to their involvement. For instance, Graham highlights that these volunteers were completing unfinished business, dating back to the First World War, often for their own individual, personal reasons, rather than as a unified collective, which would suggest that ideology was not the sole force in mobilising these men and stresses the common cultural European experience.
Finally, the notion of the Spanish Civil War being a distinct clash between two dichotomous ideologies is inaccurate, since, if one were to entertain the most predominant narrative of the war being a battle between democracy and Fascism, it would be impossible to argue that these ideologies remained consistent during the war. For example, the Republicans, who were superficially fighting for democracy, enforced conscription, often using aggression to do so, which contradicts its obligation to preserve civil liberties. Moreover, this breach of personal freedoms was also apparent when Negrín introduced special courts and thus reduced constitutional rights, which would appear to go against the constitutional framework which the Republicans built their identity around. Similarly, the Francoist cause cannot be seen as a total commitment to Nazism since, whilst even the most radical Right-wing Francoists could not imagine a society without religion, Nazism was novel because of its radial belief that a ‘purified’ society should move beyond allegiances to the Church and beyond Judaeo-Christian religion itself. If the focus is then Francoism then, rather than Fascism as the dominant ideology, one can point to the contradictions in this ideology to break the idea that the Spanish Civil War was fought between two distinct and certain ideologies. For instance, in its obsession with ‘Spanishness’ and a ‘cleansed’ society, and through its allegiance to the Catholic Church, Francoism itself was inherently flawed through the fact that Islamic mercenary soldiers were being mobilised for the rebel cause, making up a significant proportion of those actually responsible for the military coup which began the Civil War. Therefore, the Spanish Civil War cannot be seen as a clash between two distinct ideologies, particularly as these ideologies were not clearly defined, they changed in response to war pressures and often were inherently contradictory.
In conclusion, it must be acknowledged that ideology played some role in the Spanish Civil War, but not so much to merit the representation of the Spanish Civil War as a clash of ideologies. For example, notions of democracy, fascism, imperialism, communism and conservatism all featured in the Civil War to varying extents and had some importance in the course of the war. However, depicting the Spanish Civil War as a clash of ideologies, which rests on the assumption that there was a conflict between two, dichotomous and fundamentally opposed ideologies, is essentially flawed, for various reasons which have been explored in the essay. For instance, divisions between political groupings, especially on the political Left, would disprove the idea that the war was fought between two solid sides, both following distinctive and coherent ideologies. The notion of any overarching ideologies being coherent has also been challenged, through exposing their inherent contradictions in and the ways in which their principals were often betrayed as a result of war-time circumstances. Moreover, that the tensions within and between these political groupings were often caused by pragmatic reasons, rather than ideological ones, rightly diminishes the importance of ideology in the Spanish Civil War. Likewise, by adopting a similarly sceptic approach to international involvement in looking beyond the superficial ideological justifications for intervention, the pragmatic and tactical reasons for involvement in the conflict become obvious and again demonstrate that the Spanish Civil War was not a clash of ideologies, either on an internal or international level. Finally, the Spanish Civil War, rather than being a clash between two distinct ideologies, was rather the explosion of simmering tensions, which had some commonality across Europe but which also had distinctive regional narratives, both of which discredit the idea that the Spanish Civil War had a distinct, ideological dimension to it. Therefore, it is more accurate to see the Spanish Civil War as creating fragmentations and being a ‘splintered’ experience across various lines, rather than as a reductive conflict between two distinct ideologies pitted against each other.