During the Spanish Civil War, Americans volunteered for the international brigades that fought. But every single American fought for the Republic, and none for the Nationalists.
Why is this?
You would have thought that at least a few Americans were right-wing, religious, and opposed to the Communist-included Popular Front.
I also think that British volunteers were overwhelmingly on the republican side as well, which is also surprising, because aren’t most British (especially then) supporters of Monarchy in general? The Monarchy was representated on the Nationalist side.
The Nationalists received much more assistance from their fascist comrades in Germany and Italy than the Republicans eve received from anyone, to the extent that there were thousands of Italian troops on the ground, and German pilots in the air actively taking part in the combat. The biggest source of assistance for the Republican side came from the USSR and understandably, the other Republican factions were never quite at ease with this. There were even anti-Mussolini Italian volunteers fighting on the republican side against their own countrymen. I imagine there just wasn’t really a great need for civilian volunteers on the Nationalist side.
How do you know it was zero? As for why it was at least lopsided, the International Brigades did advertise. Although there certainly was a great anticommunist sentiment, fascists were also a concern for Americans.
As for the British support, support for their monarchy does not equal support for all monarchies. Royalist France assisted the US revolution against the British monarchy, you might remember.
The British in 1936 (and to a lesser extent today) supported *their *monarchy - not “monarchy in general”. (We weren’t keen on the German Kaiser in the years leading up to WW1, for instance, or the Austrian Emperor or the Russian Tsar - they were seen as autocratic tyrants.) The British monarchy had already been relieved of effective political power, so there was no real comparison with monarchies elsewhere. I suspect if you asked most Britons at the time whether Spain should be a monarchy or not, they’d say it was up to the Spanish to decide that. As for why most Britons and Americans supported the Republic, it’s because few people wanted to fight alongside the German Nazis and Italian Fascists to help a right-wing military coup overthrow a legitimate elected government.
"The Spanish Civil War, by Hugh Thomas (1961) (Original edition).
He explicitly says, in a footnote, that not a single american fought for the nationalists.
More recent research suggests that this might not be true.
Professor Judith Keene, of the University of Sydney, has been doing research for years on volunteers who fought for Franco. She was my European History professor when i was freshman at Sydney Uni, and at the time we read her article, “An Antipodean Bridegroom of Death: An Australian with Franco’s Forces in the Spanish Civil War” (Journal of the Royal Australian Historical Society, 70, no 4, Apr 1985), which details the exploits of Nugent Bull, the single Australian who fought for Franco (about 60 Aussies fought for the Republicans).
Anyway, in 2001 Keene came out with a book called Fighting For Franco: International Volunteers in Nationalist Spain during the Spanish Civil War, 1936-39 (London: Leicester University Press, 2001). I haven’t read the book myself, but according to this review, there was at least one American, airman Vincent Patriarcha, fighting for Franco’s forces.
In regard to non-American Nationalist Volunteers, there was the Irish Blue Shirts, led by Eoin O’Duffy, and the French Jeanne d’Arc Battalion, led by Bonneville de Marsangy.
It is a good book which I have but it is silly for him to say not a single American fought for the nationalists because it is almost impossible to prove and odds are he is wrong.
Young Americans were probably idealist and more concerned with the formality of the Republican being the “legal” government and the nationalists the “illegal insurgents” than with more practical facts like the republican government being a failure at keeping any semblance of order or safety. They saw the Spanish Republic as a noble experiment in Anarchism-Socialism-Communism all at the same time even though they are contradictory by nature. It was just too bad if convents were being sacked and burnt and priests were being shot. (sort of like saying today that it’s just too bad some Iraqis had to die in order that America could bring “democracy” to Iraq) People tend to ignore the parts of the equation 'which does not favor their thesis.
I also want to point out that at no moment was Franco considered a monarchist by anybody at all so that argument is not valid. There were some generals who were monarchists and Franco made sure they were always kept in check.
I am trying to find information about this, and am wondering if my grandpa was just “telling stories.” He used to talk about being stationed in the Phillipines and volunteering to be put on a “tequila boat” (he used to drink a lot) then fought for Franco. He also landed in Normandy, but I, of course dont have any paperwork about him fighting in Spain… WW2 was his last tour.
I don’t know if this is some terminological difference in the languages, but the most commonly understood terminology of the Spanish Civil War, at least in Anglo-American countries, is that Franco’s side is referred to as the Nationalists, and the side defending the Republican government (with all of its left and Popular Front factions) is known as the Republicans.
All the big histories of the war (Hugh Thomas, Paul Preston, etc., etc.) in English use these terms in this way. Preston, for example, in talking about Franco’s army, says:
mhendo, perhaps a translation/language barrier/mistake/mistranslation/confusion? The partido nacionalista or whatever faction it was, and their supporters, the nacionalistas (nationalists) were part of the group that composed the Republican forces. Franco’s side, in Spanish, is (in part) called falange.
Yeah, what KarlGrenze said, sort of. The different Partidos Nacionalistas (Basque, Catalan et al.) were on the Republican side: the Nacional side was formed by Falange (national-socialist) and Carlistas (traditionalists), neither of which are Nationalists in Spanish terms. I can see foreigners being confused by the superficial similarity between both terms, but they actually mean extremely different things.
The sort of is because my Carlista relatives considered it a perfectly fine form of sport to throw rocks at anything resembling a Falangista… the two groups actually have very little in common, other than having been on the same side in that war.
But i’m not “confused.” I’m using the terms exactly as they have been used by some of the most respected scholars of the Civil War.
Go and look at Hugh Thomas’s book. Or Paul Preston’s. Or any one of a dozen others. They refer to Franco’s forces, in the aggregate, as the Nationalists. They do this precisely because of the rhetoric of unification and nationalist pride that was so central to Falangist ideology. ¡Viva España!, as they said: a united Spain, one with no time for the nationalist separatism of the Basques or the Catalans, or the global solidarity and cooperation of socialists and communists.
Sure, there are important ideological differences between the Falangists and the Carlists, but they are sort of like the bickering factions of many allied groups: they were quite happy to put aside their differences and join together in killing and oppressing anyone with even vaguely republican or Popular Front or left ideas, and were happy to continue doing so in the decades after the war was over.
A few years back (well, more than a few), my ex-USA colonel FIL showed me an article that made him mad. It was because a congressman from NYC wanted to sponsor a bill that would give US survivors of the Spanish Civil War veteran’s benefits. As far as I know, the bill never passed.
Just as well, probably, all of these guys are dead now.