‘Under the Sign of Mars: Violence in European Civil Wars, 1917–1949’ by Javier Rodrigo
Rodrigo sets the ambitious objective to develop a framework for the comparison of the various civil wars occurring in Europe during the first half of the 20th century. Focusing on European civil wars between 1917 and 1949, he tries to disentangle the logic of these conflicts from the resulting violence: whereas civil wars are internal struggles for power and control, violence is instrumental in the retention of such power and the transformation of society.
A strong emphasis is given on the multi-dimensional dynamic of civil wars, which originate from multiple factors, occurring at various levels (macro to micro), and involving a variety of actors. Hence, examining the reasons for violence requires delving into ideological, cultural, political, economic, and identity-related factors at the local, regional, national, and international levels.
Taking a macro-level perspective at first, Rodrigo finds a common ground between the contemporary civil and international wars: both took civilians as their primary targets, thus contributing to the erosion of the distinction between combatants and non-combatants. Then, he focuses on Russia (from 1917 to 1923), considered to be the first significant internal conflict in Europe. It was based upon the enmity opposing the revolutionary Reds and the counter-revolutionary Whites: both conducted a political cleansing among the population and sought to annihilate their respective adversary. On the one hand, around 250,000 “enemies of the people” were executed by the Bolsheviks, along with 500,000 Cossacks deported. On the other hand, about 100,000 to 150,000 people were killed by the Tsarists in Ukraine alone.
The case of the Finnish civil war (winter-spring 1918) presents similarities to the conflict in Russia, for it was triggered following fragmentation of sovereignty. However, the emergence of fascism in Europe complexified the subsequent internal struggles, which do not fit the “revolutionaries versus counter-revolutionaries” setting.
In Spain for example, the counter-revolution was pre-emptive, to stop the advancing socialism. The Spanish civil war also stands out for its unprecedented, institutionalized brutality: almost 3% of the population were killed in 1936, notably following the establishment of people’s and military tribunals.
The period 1939-45 saw the juxtaposition of several factors, at various levels: total, national, political, and class wars coincided with wars of religion. This multiplicity of elements added to the enduring non-recognition of “bystanders” (i.e. non-participants) is at the core of the intense violence – which would also characterize the ensuing civil wars in Yugoslavia and Greece.
Yet, given the variety of factors, levels, and actors involved in the internal conflicts of that time, one may question the relevance of Rodrigo’s approach: beyond the obvious “multi-directional nature” of civil wars, is there anything to link European internal struggles to one another? Rodrigo argues that fascism becomes the common denominator of civil wars following Russia; however, were they all about/due to fascism? If so, Rodrigo would probably fail to account for the micro-level of interpretation that he emphasizes at the beginning of the paper. Unfortunately, in trying to cover such a large number of conflicts, his account gets dispersed and lacks a well-structured narrative thread.
‘The Genesis of Russian Warlordism: Violence and Governance during the First World War and the Civil War’ by Joshua Sanborn
Only seven journals used the term “warlord” in their titles between 1966 and 1993, and none of these titles were about Russia. According to Joshua Sanborn, in his article “The Genesis of Russian Warlordism: Violence and Governance during the First World War and the Civil War”, the period of 1915-1925 was a decade of warlords in Eurasia. Sanborn defines a warlord as “a military commander who autonomously exercises political power through the threatening use of force” (p. 197). Sanborn defines two conditions for warlordism to appear: the failure of the state, and candidates with military experience, authority, and ambition.
The first condition exposed by Sanborn is state collapse. During World War 1, martial law was introduced in the Western Russian territory, this included curfews, searches of homes and businesses, the deportation of undesirables, fixed prices, trade restrictions, labor requirements, censorship, removal of local officials, and harassment of civilian relief agencies. This led to a sense of anarchy in civilian life, along with insecurity. The territory also had to face ethnic cleansing against Germans and Jews. All of these events and policies led to a certain amount of distrust towards the government, as the state lost legitimacy and power.
The second condition needed is to have candidates with military experience, authority, and ambition. According to Sanborn, without ambition, one simply cannot become a warlord. For example, General Ianushkevich controlled both military and political life but was not a warlord as he lacked the ambition to take power. During the February Revolution, revolutionaries lacked legitimacy and a coherent political program. The Soviets gave their soldiers the right to disobey orders which caused an increase in insubordination. This collapse of discipline is what pushed men like Lavr Kornilov to become warlords. Kornilov used terror to govern and became both a political and military leader. He was the leader of a “Savage Division” that committed atrocities like executions and mass deportations. Kornilov believed that dictatorship was necessary to save the army. Following the October Revolution, he became the leader of the Volunteer Army which opposed the Red Army. This conflict led to a lot of atrocities being committed against civilians, especially against Jews as they were seen as being “Red”. Another example of warlordism is the Baron Roman von Ungern-Shternberg who occupied the city of Urga (Ulaanbaatar, capital of Mongolia) for a short period of time, under which his men caused various bloodsheds and massacres.
Although Sanborn explains a lot about the warlords themselves, he passes over rather quickly on the political situation of the time and keeps the focus on the opponents of the Red Army. He also passes very briefly on the warlords’ motivations and influences. A lot of what happened in the Russian territory at that time can be linked back to the French Revolutions, particularly the use of Terror. It is also interesting that the opponents of the Bolsheviks targeted Jews by saying that Jewish people were communists since it is the exact same argument used by Hitler during his rise to power. Overall Sanborn focuses a lot on the military aspect of warlordism while pushing aside a more social and civilian aspect, as I think it would be interesting to get a look at the different perspectives of the people involved.