Each influential political force of the Spanish tragedy was not monolithic. The right CEDA vibrated between fascism and conservatism, and the fascism tried to combine the Italian patterns, the Spanish conservative tradition and syndicalism. The liberal organizations moved either towards conservatism (radicals) or social democratic values. PSOE was torn apart by the struggle of the left socialists (caballerists) and social-liberals (prietists, etc.). The libertarian camp included a wide spectrum of parties, from anarchist extremism to moderate syndicalism close to the left social democracy. The contradictions between Marxist-Leninists were the sharpest. The Communist Party of Spain (CPS) and National-Communist (procommunist) PSUC considered the Anti-Stalin Marxist-Leninist POUM which tried to make an collaboration with CNT to be main enemy of CPS-PSUC alongside with the fascism. The important role in a political life was played by the trade unions which in fact controlled their members not only in social, but in the political aspect as well.
The situation in Spain also depended on the world developments: Great Depression, struggle between fascism and communism. In the Spanish circumstances, the People’s Front policy initiated by Comintern was of great importance. It provided the organizational form for consolidation of the left forces and facilitated the transition of CPS to the moderate positions. However, the People’s Front won the election partly due to support of anarcho-syndicalists.
The political heat developed after the People’s Front had come to power didn’t quite match up the mildness of the reforms implemented by the liberal government. The mass moods were «piled up» and radicalized by the ideological elite. The potential victory of political opponents was considered a catastrophe. The moderate policy of liberals didn’t correspond with the depth of social crisis. The profascist militaries exploited the situation to seize power and destroy the Republic. Although Franco and his generals indentified themselves with a multiple-valued term «nationalists», their ideology had fascist character.
When the militaries tried to put an end to the governance of the Left, they immediately received a counterstroke from the trade unions and socialist parties. They secured a full mobilization and achieved distribution of arms to the people. The republican army began to form as a militia army. It assured the initial success of republicans over the greater part of the country.
Both the rebellion and fighting against it were accompanied by terror. Antirepublican terror was more regular, whereas one from the republic anarchists more spontaneous.
The assistance provided by «Axis» countries helped rebels to recover from the first attack in July. It became clear that the republican militia, which surpassed the army in the city conditions, was unable to pursue an offensive war. CNT militia failed to attack Saragossa. There the front consolidated. In the other regions where the militia system was not supported by the strong syndicalism structure in the rear, the militia could not maintain any sufficient resistance to the direct attack of the army.
The European diplomacy was caught off guard by the internationalization of the conflict in Spain. At first, it seemed like the situation would be quickly resolved either by a victory or defeat of revolution. Instead of which a prolonged war began; moreover, in many respects it began due to external intervention. Intense diplomatic activity around the Spanish tragedy made some authors to believe that the destiny of Spain was not solved in Madrid. That corresponded to the opinion of the rulers of destinies of the World in London, Paris, Berlin and Rome. But the Spaniards fighting spoilt a game to the European diplomacy. If the republicans had not defended Madrid, not continued struggling up to 1939, «the Spanish item» would have been quickly removed from the agenda. The destiny of Spain was shaped not only in Madrid, but in Madrid as well. Contrary to the opinion of some politicians of the Republic (including President Azaña) and some modern historians, the war had not been initially lost by republicans, all the more so as they had received the timely aid from the USSR which alongside with inter-brigades counterbalanced the factor of fascist intervention up to 1938.
Showing resistance to the fascism, Spain changed a situation in the Europe. It built up strained relations between the conservative government of the Great Britain and People’s Front of France which was «ideologically aligned» with the Republic. However, the leaders of French People’s Front in fact betrayed the Spanish Republic being afraid of both the revolution and fascism. The war in Spain enabled rapprochement between Germany and Italy, and in order to return Italy to «Antanta» the Great Britain and France were ready to sacrifice the Spanish Republic. The policy of appeasement which reached a «Munich moment» had first been «approbated» in Spain in the form of hands off approach. The USSR participated in it for tactical reasons. After having checked that the fascists didn’t stop helping the rebellion, the Soviet management also began to assist the Republic. It was of the essential importance for the USSR both for ideological and foreign policy reasons that the Republic didn’t crash. The war in Spain was not only the first large-scale fight against fascism. It distracted attention of the West including Nazism from the borders of the USSR in an opposite direction.
Spain affected the course of events in the crucial second half of the 1930s by becoming the major political and military testing ground. Spain provided the invaluable military and political experience in such matters as a role of aviation and artillery in modern war (tanks hadn’t won their spurs yet), relationship between the front line and rear, etc. Not always that experience was apprehended, and partly it became outdated with the beginning of the Second World War and its blitzkriegs. Military experts of the USSR and France could make sure that a «war of motors» might be a positional war — as the First World War was. It led to tragic mistakes in 1940–1941.
* * *
The beginning of the Civil War, distribution of arms among civilians in the Republic led to the beginning of not just a socio-political, but deep social revolution, qualitative changes in property relations and the political system. As a result of industrial collectivization (incautation, socialization) in Spain, first of all in Catalonia and Aragon, a new sector of economy appeared that qualitatively differed both from the capitalist ones, and from the state ones — first of all by the advanced system of industrial democracy, participation of a worker in taking industrial decisions. The negative attitude of the anarchist doctrine to the «democracy» as to the multi-party parliamentary system didn’t prevent anarcho-syndicalists from incorporating democracy in the sphere of production. Relying on the trade-union structures, the аnarcho-syndicalists and the left socialists made a practical step to divorce a producer from the means of production. But it was just a step.
The dictatorship of the manager was replaced by the power of the collective represented by its core group (first of all trade-union leaders from CNT structure) and almost religious influence of anarchist slogans, contradiction with which could be considered the counterrevolution. However, the influence of the ideology shared by the significant mass of workers played the role of mobilizing the masses including at the place of production. The anarcho-syndicalists and the left socialists managed to create a rather effective and democratic social system (to the extent possible in the conditions of Civil War) based on the industrial democracy. Despite the heavy economic situation caused by war and split of the country, the collectivized industry prevented a steep decline in production. Introduction of industrial democracy system drove the productive efficiency which after all might be possible at the Spanish enterprises of the day in conditions of war and partial economic blockade. A myth about «disorganization of production by anarcho-syndicalists» could be considered completely wrong. When the workers and engineers took possession of factories, they did their best. The production volumes required to meet war demands exceeded the pre-war performance. However, the model of self-government and industrial democracy to be coordinated by trade unions and semi-government public structures dissatisfied the representatives of other political forces. In 1937 it resulted in a considerable aggravation of political struggle in the republican camp. The struggle against the industrial democracy which took place during Negrin’s government (1937–1939) contributed to a decline in the economic growth rate in comparison to the Largo Caballero governance.
