| Hello
and welcome to the history page. We will pick up the thread of our narrative this
week with the aftermath of the October Revolution. Readers will remember from
our last instalment that his proletarian revolt stands out as an unmistakable
foreshadowing of the civil war that was soon to erupt. Of the many elements common
to both events, the three factors most worth of note are, of course, the leadership
and victory of General Franco; the extreme ruthlessness of the ‘African Guard’,
i.e. the legion of soldiers and officials who had participated in the Moroccan
Conflict (1909-1927) and who would later comprise the vanguard of the National
offensive in the civil war; and, finally, the ability of the working classes to
effectively organize a war effort with the maintenance of supply lines, the provision
of medical assistance, etc. Although successful in suppressing
the revolution, the incident left the governing coalition shaken and sharply divided.
Members of CEDA advocated the maximum punishment allowable by law against the
mutineers: the death penalty for the uprising’s instigators and leaders,
solitary confinement for lesser heads and incarceration for all other participants,
accomplices and known sympathizers. Lerroux’s Radical Party, on the other
hand, was reluctant to add anymore animosity and bloodshed to an already imbrued
situation. Even the conservative presidential figurehead, Alcalá Zamora,
reminded CEDA of the amnesty recently granted to the conspirators of the 1932
military coup, arguing that the same leniency should now be granted to the Asturian
miners. Moral Considerations Most
of us, sitting comfortably in our homes and enjoying innumerable civil rights
which more often than not we take for granted, may ask the question: Why did Spanish
workers continually rise up in arms, overriding the legal institutions that existed
- albeit tenuously - for their defence. To answer that question, I offer a pertinent
quote from Barbara Tuchman’s historical opus, A Distant Mirror. Although
writing about the French peasantry in the 13th century, Tuchman’s observations
are entirely apropos to the Spanish proletariat in the 20th century - or, for
that matter, to any oppressed peoples at any stage of history. Pondering the causes
of social upheaval, Tuchman in turn cites the words of Philippe de Beaumanoir
who, in 1280-3, wrote: “… there have been acts of violence because
the poor will not suffer this [oppression] but know not how to obtain their right
except by rising and seizing it for themselves.” Understanding
all too well the plight of Spain’s oppressed, the splintered republican left
re-banded under a programme of amnesty for the imprisoned revolutionaries, deeming
that whatever debt they owed society for their insurgence, it had already been
paid by virtue of the thousands of dead, wounded, lynched and tortured workers
struck down by the ‘African Guard’. Naturally, this legion was anxious
to conceal from public scrutiny the brutality that had occurred during and after
the revolution. To ensure that knowledge of these atrocities would not be disseminated,
Luis de Sirval, a journalist who published a candid and incriminating account
of the revolution, was killed by one of the legionnaires, effectively terrorizing
the press into silence. Scandal Discredits Lerroux At
the internal level of government, CEDA rose in influence after the revolution,
being awarded two more ministerial portfolios in addition to the three they already
held. The most important of these was the Ministry of Defence under CEDA party
leader, Gil Robles, a great admirer of Franco who wasted no time in appointing
the soon-to-be dictator as Field Marshal of the Spanish Army. The
ruling coalition remained in power throughout the following year, but would soon
be brought down by a corruption scandal in the Radical Party. In September of
1935, a Dutch businessman, David Strauss, set up a newly-devised type of roulette
in San Sebastián and Palma de Majorca. No sooner did the gaming wheels
begin to operate, however, than they were closed down. At this, Strauss, who had
quietly promised a percentage of the earnings in exchange for his operating license,
approached the Republic’s presidential figurehead, Alcalá Zamora,
to complain. Having no knowledge of these secret arrangements, Alcalá Zamora
began to look into the matter only to discover that the principle accomplices
to the extralegal gambling concession were none other than Lerroux (leader of
parliament), Lerroux’s son, as well as certain ministers and other high-ranking
government officials, all members of the Radical Party. CEDA
Power Ploy Spurned In view of the scandal, Gil Robles
felt sure his hour had come and asked Alcalá Zamora to appoint him as the
new leader of parliament - a post he could now execute without the encumbrance
of a coalition with Lerroux’s suddenly extinct Radical Party. Much to the
minister’s chagrin, Alcalá Zamora declined on his proposal, unconvinced
of the former’s trustworthiness. It was rumoured that Gil Robles planned
to amend the constitution in such a way as to rescind many of the civil liberties
therein guaranteed. Moreover, Gil Robles was known for his indifference to the
republican form of government, an ideal which Alcalá Zamora, despite his
conservatism, cherished above all else. On these grounds, the republican patriarch
passed over Gil Robles in favour of ‘a man of his confidence’, Manuel
Portela Valladares. Like his appointer, the chosen statesman had been politically
active during the days of the monarchy but had only recently re-entered public
life. The primary function of his cameo appearance in republican government was
to prepare the general elections that would vote in a new parliament. Cowardice
Discredits Gil Robles Left to stew in his own juices,
Gil Robles toyed with the idea of overthrowing the Republic - or rather having
the Republic overthrown for him. To this end he tentatively began to correspond
with various generals as to their sentiments on this matter. One of these furtive
exchanges, carried out between Gil Robles and General Fanjul (one of Franco’s
future collaborators), ran thusly: “If you give
me the order, this very night I will take to the streets of Madrid with the garrisons
of the capital. General Varela feels the same as I do.” Reluctant
to assume responsibility for the proposed coup, Gil Robles answered back: “If
the army, grouped around its natural leaders, believes it must seize power in
order to save the spirit of the Constitution, I will not put up the slightest
obstacle.” In other words, Gil Robles bounced
the ball back into the army’s court, refusing to stand up as the official
instigator of the power grab. At this impasse, Franco informed Gil Robles that
ideological unanimity within the army was not a given, for which reason, without
a clear order issuing from the Ministry of Defence, military cohesion could not
be counted on to pull off the coup. Fully aware of the dire implications should
this assault on legitimate authority fail, Gil Robles vacillated timorously and
was finally pressured into resigning from his post. His unwillingness to give
the necessary go-ahead was viewed by many army officials and political rightists,
including members of his own party, as a sign of cowardice and his career was
effectively extinguished at this juncture. Closing On
4th January 1936 parliament was dissolved marking the natural death of the Black
Biennium. New elections were held on 16th February, the results of which gave
a parliamentary majority to the political left, again under the presidency of
Manuel Azaña. As soon as the leftist victory became known, in darkest secrecy
Franco began to weave the complex web machinations that would overthrow the Republic,
this time with no holds barred. Join us next week as the plot thickens.
Emily Kaufman
emilykaufman@liveibiza.com
| |
