Spanish Civil War Navy

7/28/2019 Spanish Civil War Navy

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/spanish-civil-war-navy 1/9

82 JFQ / Autumn/Winter 2001–02

A

mong ideologues on the left and theright, the Spanish civil war was per-haps the most controversial conflictof the 20th century. Moreover, Euro-

pean powers could not ignore the fact that itposed the greatest threat to peace since WorldWar I. Spain’s strategic location, the rise of fas-cism as a military threat, and the presence of over100,000 foreign nationals drew internationalnaval forces into Spanish waters. Thus the con-flict entangled foreign powers which, in addition

to sparring with Republican and Nationalistforces, became involved in ad hoc multinationaloperations from support to combatants to inter-diction patrols, antisubmarine operations, andnoncombatant evacuation—portending whattoday is known as coalitions of the willing .

It’s War

The Spanish military leadership launched anattempt to overthrow the left-wing Republicangovernment on July 17, 1936. France, Germany,Great Britain, Italy, and the United States hadnaval forces in Spanish waters or en route withindays. They were joined by Argentina, Mexico,Portugal, and Yugoslavia by the end of the year.

Adam B. Siegel is a member of the Northrop Grumman Analysis Center

and formerly was affilidated with the Center for Naval Analyses.

InternationalNaval Cooperation

during the SpanishCivilWar By A D A M B. S I E G E L

Taking on refugees.



In line with a long history of such actions, thenavies involved in evacuation operations cooper-ated in communications, intelligence, and logis-tic support; removal of each others’ nationals;diplomatic demarches or joint actions against Re-publican or Nationalist activities; and cordialityto reduce the tensions and burdens of patrollingSpanish waters.

Cooperation emerged from the start. Thefirst messages the U.S. consul at Barcelona sent tothe State Department, calling for the evacuationof American citizens, went via the Royal Navy.Most Americans had already been evacuatedaboard other nations’ ships by the time a U.S.

merchant ship reached Barcelonaseveral days later. In November,the Germans asked the British toassist them in evacuating their citi-zens from southern Spain. This

pattern continued through thewar. The U.S. Navy evacuated over 1,500 people,of whom only 633 were American citizens. TheGerman navy evacuated 9,300 in July and August1936, half nationals from third countries. Thecombined navies removed 50,000 foreigners and10,000 Spaniards by the end of 1936.

Naval services often collaborated. Professionalcourtesies included steps to relieve the tensions of the day. Thus, for example, U.S. warships fre-quently had foreign officers aboard for movies—with German ships providing the beer. Such atti-tudes extended into the operations in Spanishwaters, with honors exchanged among the numer-

ous foreign ships anchored in Spanish harbors.

Cooperation often extended to giving adviceand informing other navies of local conditions.On July 30, 1936, the captain of the German war-ship Albatross, which had just entered Bilbao, waspreparing to send an armed party ashore to pro-tect evacuation efforts. The captain of a Britishship in the harbor quickly dissuaded him. TheGermans were surprised to learn that, far frombeing occupied by armed belligerents, Bilbao wasquiet. Sending armed patrols ashore would havedone more harm than good. Thanks to theBritish, the German captain avoided an embar-rassing incident.

Freedom of the Seas

The civil war threatened general navigationfrom its earliest days, with attacks on merchantand neutral warships beginning in early July.Crews took appropriate steps. British ships dis-

played floodlit white ensigns on their turrets. TheU.S. Navy directed its vessels near the Spanishcoast to display additional colors. Despite such ef-forts attacks on neutrals increased. Nationsprotested to both sides in the civil war and war-ships were ordered to fire on attacking warplanes.A plane attempted to bomb USS Kane on August30, 1936. The log recorded:

At 1610 unidentif ied, tri-motored, low blackwinged monoplane approached ship from stern anddropped 2 bombs which exploded 1,000 yards astern.Went to general quarters, and maneuvered on variouscourses at various speeds to avoid bombs. At 1625 plane returned and dropped 1 bomb, distance of miss150 yards. At 1626 opened fire on plane with anti-

aircraft gun, fired 2 rounds. At 1631 plane circled back toward ship, re-sumed fire on plane with antiair-craft gun. At 1632 plane dropped 3bombs which exploded 200 yardsabeam to starboard. At 1634 ceasedfiring, total rounds expended 10rounds 3 inch 23 cal. SPD 2235service shrapnel ammunition, no ca-sualties and apparently no casual-ties inflicted on plane. At 1645 plane retreated in northeasterly di-

rection and disappeared. . . .1

The question of belligerentrights, such as the authority to in-stitute a blockade or stop ships onthe high seas, remained through-out the war and frequently pro-voked naval responses. The Re-publicans suggested that theywould blockade all ports in Na-tionalist hands in August 1936.

S i e g e l

Autumn/Winter 2001–02 / JFQ 83

Refugees en route to

France, 1936.

the civil war threatened

general navigation from

its earliest days

N a t i o n a l A r c h i v e s



s N A V A L C O O P E R A T I O N


Since they did not recognize international bel-ligerent status, the French protested that this “po-lice measure” would undermine legitimate free-dom of commerce. French warships would notpermit merchant ships to be diverted. Britain an-nounced a similar policy. The German navy pur-sued an activist approach. It seized two Republi-can vessels at one point and turned them over toNationalist forces as part of the pressure on theRepublicans to release the seized German mer-chant ship Palos. The Germans appeared ready toinvoke gunboat diplomacy to protect their inter-ests in Spain.

Naval operations included intervention insupport of both sides. This was particularly evi-dent in the case of German and Italian backingof the Nationalists and Soviet support for the Re-publicans. The German presence was the mostpronounced. In late July, a German squadron en-

tered the Nationalist port of Ceuta for “a joyouscelebration.” Such public demonstrations of im-plicit German recognition of Nationalist legiti-macy escalated throughout the autumn, with

formal recognition coming in November. Alongwith advisors ashore, the Germans providedtechnical support to Nationalist ships. They alsobegan supporting military action. This complic-ity highlights the complex and often duplicitousnature of naval cooperation. At the same timeGerman vessels were anchored in harbors toevacuate foreign nationals or support Germandiplomats, they observed Republican naval activ-ity and reported it to the Nationalists.

Italian navy involvement included resupply-ing Nationalist ships and collecting intelligence.From late October through November 1936, twoItalian destroyers patrolled the straits of Sicily toreport on shipping from the Soviet Union cross-ing the Mediterranean to Spain. Italian participa-tion was generally more extensive and overt thanGerman efforts. Thus Italian ships played a directrole in the fighting “on seven dark nights in Jan-

uary and February 1937. . . bombarding Spanishports.” Republican forces recovered Italian shellfragments, confirming “a widespread assumption

Republicans and Nationalists

Spain’s Second Republic, proclaimed after the fall of the monarchy in 1931, was at first dominated by middle classliberals and moderate socialists whose policies threatened the privileged class. Large estates were redistributed,church and state were separated, and the government proclaimed an antimilitarist policy. With their interests and

ideals under attack, the landed aristocracy, the church, officer corps, monarchists, and a new fascist party (Falange), op-posed the fledgling administration. The government’s idealistic reforms also failed to satisfy left-wing radicals and didlittle to ameliorate the lot of the lower classes. Right-wing forces gained a majority in the 1933 elections, leading to asuccession of weak coalition governments.

After a left-wing electoral victory in 1936, revolutionary sentiment on the right was consolidated. In July, GeneralFrancisco Franco led an army revolt in Morocco. Rightist groups rebelled in Spain, and most of the army joined the revo-

lutionary (Nationalist) camp. By November, theNationalists had Madrid under siege. A newRepublican government under Francisco LargoCaballero organized loyalist forces to defendthe city. They were aided by internationalbrigades—foreign volunteers, many of themcommunists.

Throughout the war, Germany and Italyaided Franco with equipment, supplies, mili-tary advisors, and technicians. The Spanish re-

public became dependent on the Soviet Unionfor logistical support.

Late in 1938, Franco mounted a major of-fensive against Catalonia, seizing Barcelona inJanuary. After the loss of Catalonia the Repub-lican cause became hopeless. The victoriousNationalists entered Madrid on April 1, 1939.Combat fatalities on both sides during the con-flict were 285,000. JFQ

N a t i o n a l A r c h i v e s

General Francisco Franco

with staff.



S i e g e l


Nationalist sailors with

Italian torpedo.





of Italian responsibility.” Despite this, “Italian ad-mirals outwardly appeared puzzled when British

naval officers in Spanish waters raised the issue.”2

To avoid publicly flaunting noninterventionagreements and minimize the likelihood of othernations intervening to assist the Republican gov-ernment, the Germans and Italians typicallyavoided obvious signs of military support. Their

desire to advance the Nationalistcause, combined with their need forsecrecy, rapidly led to a reliance onsubmarine activity. Italian submarinepatrols with Spanish officers aboardbegan on November 8, 1936. TheGermans also dispatched two boats,

but operational orders were so restrictive due tofears of international complications from mistak-enly attacking British navy or other foreign shipsthat the submarines accomplished nothing andwere ordered home on December 11.

The Soviets provided a less extensive rangeof naval support. They lacked warships capableof operating so far from home, but that did notprevent them from contributing in a potentiallydecisive manner. By early September, Com-modore N.G. Kuznetsov reached the Republicannaval headquarters at the head of a group of ad-visors who essentially took over. Soviet advice,

based on the weak status of their navy and doc-trine oriented toward coastal defense, radically

affected the character of Republican operations,turning them from offensive sorties against Na-tionalist forces to limited protection of their mer-chant shipping.

Limiting Conflict

Soon after the outbreak of the Spanish CivilWar, British and French leaders demonstrated thattheir greatest concern was not to prevent fascist ex-pansion in Western Europe but to limit the con-flict to Spain and avoid a general European war. Bythe beginning of August, led by Britain and France,the European powers took the first steps toward es-tablishing the Nonintervention Committee aimedat reducing outside assistance to both sides. Thecommittee first met in London on September 9. Itattempted to determine measures to curtail theflow of arms, supplies, and volunteers to Spain inoften acrimonious meetings through the autumnof 1936. On November 12, the committee adopteda control scheme based on the use of observers.After further study, it approved a more ambitiousplan in January 1937, which provided for ob-servers to patrol Spanish land frontiers with France

their greatest concern

was to avoid a general

European war

British, French, and

Italian warships,

Barcelona.



S i e g e l


and Portugal and aboard all ships of member na-tions sailing for Spain. Naval patrols would reportall violations.

The observer mission was to take effect inMarch but, as with most of the committee’s un-dertakings, the need for clarification of the agree-ment delayed operations. Meantime, member na-tions passed laws restricting merchant traffic withSpain. Great Britain, for example, adopted theBritish Merchant Shipping Act, which bannedcarrying military supplies to either side.

The control plan, with the joint nation navalpatrol in place, took effect on April 20. Britain,France, Germany, and Italy contributed forces.The agreement divided the coast into patrol areas.The British and French navies would monitor theNationalist coast and the Germans and Italianswould observe Republican territories. Patrols wereto report vessels of participating countries thatentered their zones without notification and

without observers aboard or which refused to besearched. All the ships on patrol flew the NorthSeas Fisheries Commission pennant in the ab-sence of a Nonintervention Committee emblem.

Nationalist interference with foreign ship-ping concerned many countries. Northern Euro-pean nations, in particular, grew increasingly dis-tressed. Between November 1936 and April 1937,18 Dutch, 26 Danish, and 30 Norwegian shipshad their cargoes confiscated. The Dutch sent acruiser in March with orders to defend merchantships and the Norwegians followed suit in earlyApril. The Scandinavian countries raised theissue with the committee, suggesting that thewarships of the four powers extend their protec-tion to Scandinavian vessels with internationalobservers aboard.

German destroyer

Leopard , Seville.





Despite the calls for action, the patrolsquickly devolved into ineffectiveness, and by lateMay the French ministry of marine noted thattheir efficacy was “illusory,” there being too manyways to avoid them. Increased dangers also threat-ened the patrol effort. On May 13, the destroyer

HMS Hunter struck a mine off Almeria. Even moreserious incidents occurred later that month. Re-publican planes bombed Palma, endangering pa-trol ships. The Italian auxiliary Barletta was hitwith six killed. The committee met to discuss theincident two days later, on May 28, with the Ital-ians demanding that the group reassert its author-ity. Meanwhile, attacks continued. A Republicanbomber hit the German battleship Deutschland atIvisa, killing 22. In response, on May 31 the Ger-mans sent a cruiser and four destroyers to attackthe Republican port of Almeria. The next day the

German government withdrew from the commit-tee, declaring it would not return without assur-ances that there would be no repeat of Republicanhostilities. Italy withdrew as well. Germany alsoannounced that their ships had orders to repulseby force any plane or warship that approached

under existing conditions.In London and Paris many feared that gen-

eral war could result from further Germanreprisals or open intervention in Spain. Britainformulated a plan for increased neutral zones inSpanish ports and other measures to satisfy theGermans. This scheme faltered when Germanyannounced that Republican submarines had at-tacked the cruiser Leipzig . Berlin demanded theinternment of all Republican submarines and a

Republicans

embarking,1936.



S i e g e l


joint naval demonstration by the four powers off Valencia. The British and French doubted the re-ports of the submarine attacks and argued thataction should not be taken without an investiga-tion into the incident. The Germans refused tocooperate and Rome followed the lead of Berlin.

Britain and France decided to take over theentire patrol effort. They spent the summer seek-ing a means to reorganize operations on a more ef-fective basis. At the end of August, a committee re-port on the means for restoring and improving thenaval patrols concluded that the system had beenextensively evaded and did not justify its cost.

Attacks in the Mediterranean continued at arelatively light pace but escalated in late August

with strikes on British, French, Russian, andSpanish shipping. Both Britain and France viewedthe situation as intolerable and the British rein-forced their Mediterranean squadron and orderedit to attack any submarine in the vicinity of astrike on a merchant ship. Then a submarine at-

tack against HMS Havock on the night of August30 spurred Downing Street into supporting thecall for an international meeting. London had in-telligence intercepts proving that Italian sub-marines were responsible. Neither Britain norFrance, however, wished to directly accuse Italy.They did not want a head-on confrontation andhoped to involve the Italians in a new accord. OnSeptember 6, London and Paris sent joint invita-tions to Rome and nine other capitals, hoping toreach European consensus on dettering attacksagainst neutral shipping.

HMS Orion off Gibraltar.





The Soviets proved less diplomatic and ac-cused Italy of attacking its merchant ships. TheItalians, with the Germans following suit, usedthis accusation as an excuse not to attend theconference. The meeting opened on September 9in Nyon, Switzerland, despite the Italian andGerman refusal to participate. An agreement wassigned September 14. Immediate orders went outto British and French naval forces to attack anysubmarine caught under the conditions outlinedin the agreement.

A major issue involved which nations wouldtake responsibility for the patrols. While theBritish did not expect much cooperation, the

French proved will-ing to provide forces.That was crucial, asthe other states re-fused to participate

in operations outside their territorial waters. TheBritish and French agreed to patrol the entireMediterranean. The accord placed severe restric-tions on submarine operations, allotting only afew zones for exercises. The signatories also agreedto give logistic support to Britain and France, per-mit patrol ships to enter territorial waters in pur-suit of errant submarines, and not allow foreignsubmarines into their territorial waters.

The Nyon agreement placed heavy burdenson the British and French; the submarine patrolsrequired the support of 50 destroyers. The Britishhad to commit three-fifths of their destroyer forceand withdraw ships from the Nonintervention

Committee patrols in Spanish waters to enforcethe Nyon accord.

After the signing, London and Paris formallyinvited Rome to take over the Tyrrhenian Sea pa-trol area. Benito Mussolini agreed to modifica-tions of the Nyon clauses to accommodate Ital-ian involvement after the British and Frenchessentially agreed to grant his country equal sta-tus in directing the operations. This participationboosted his international reputation and inflatedthe role of Italy as a Mediterranean power.

Other political implications of the agree-ment were also intriguing. The Soviets perceivedthe unwillingness to directly accuse the Italians

of belligerency as yet another act of appeasementand were surprised that the patrols actually wentinto effect. The fascist powers, as well, did not ex-pect that the Western powers could act in the faceof their opposition. Neville Chamberlain, how-ever, believed that the attacks at sea representedsuch an affront to his nation’s honor that he hadno choice but to take action. To not respond inthe face of such a direct threat meant sacrificing

one of Britain’s greatest traditions—command of the sea. Still Britain’s willingness to take a standon freedom of navigation in the Mediterraneandid not suggest to the other European powersthat the country would take a firm position else-where. Indeed, the Prime Minister proved toowilling to compromise over German aggressionon the continent where he concluded that, unlikethe situation at sea, the British lacked both thecapacity and will to act.

Nevertheless, the show of force by the Britishand French navies proved effective. Attacksquickly abated with 27 destroyers now constantlyon station. In addition to ending submarinestrikes on shipping in international waters, theNyon patrol led to increased British and Frenchnaval cooperation. The Royal Navy decided inearly January 1938 to reduce patrols in light of the absence of submarine attacks. Nationalist sub-

marines went to sea not long after and the strikesresumed. The British rapidly reinforced their pa-trols and the attacks ended. London again relaxedthe patrols in May 1938 and the Nyon agreementwas suspended in August.

The blend of informal and formal opera-tions, confrontation and collaboration, interven-tionist initiatives, and acts of containment over along period all combined to give the naval activ-ity during the Spanish Civil War an unusuallyrich complexion. They were an early example of what can be accomplished by coalitions of thewilling under even the most difficult circum-

stances. Perhaps most of all they offer an impor-tant lesson on how nations can reach beyond thelimits of their own instruments of national powerto provide the forces necessary to respond to cri-sis and deescalate conflict. JFQ

N O T E S

1 Entry for August 30, 1936, log book, USS Kane,

LLL–16, U.S. naval vessels, record group 24, NationalArchives.

2 John F. Coverdale, Italian Intervention in the Spanish

Civil War (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1975),p. 116.

the show of force by the British

and French navies proved effective

Spanish Civil War Navy

Documents

Transcript of Spanish Civil War Navy