Javier Rodrigo, “Under the Sign of Mars: Violence in European Civil Wars, 1917-1949” by Emily Crainie.
In this article Javier Rodrigo discusses the history of violence in European civil wars during the period between 1917-1949, looking at a variety of conflicts throughout this period to ensure success in his comparative approach. Rodrigo discusses how useful the term ‘civil war’ can be when describing internal conflicts (pg.489), Rodrigo also considers why civil wars and internal conflicts can appear to be particularly violent (pg.487).
Rodrigo manages to conclude that civil war is a useful term when considering the nature of and labelling internal conflicts (pg.506). Rodrigo does this by further analysing internal conflicts that he believes are not as universally accepted or recognised as Finland to give a more comprehensive comparison (pg.489). Rodrigo also mentions that a formal declaration of war does not need to be made in order for an internal conflict to become known as a civil war (pg.495).
Rodrigo also successfully understands and explains why civil wars can seem so cruel, Rodrigo does this by focusing on the violence used against non-combatant civilians and the increasing number of deaths of innocent people as a result (pg.489-491). One example of this Rodrigo gives is the Spanish civil war where he states that the number of non-combatant civilian deaths outnumbered the deaths of combatants by more than half (pg.497). Rodrigo suggests that civil wars and internal conflicts are a way of ‘purging’ and ‘cleansing’ in order shape the future society and this is why they always lead to some sort of “purification” (pg.506). This ties in with Rodrigos concluding paragraph as to why civil wars seem so violent he states that they do not recognise non-combatant civilians and believes they are a form or total war (pg.505-6/489).
Overall Rodrigo manages to come to a conclusion on both of the aims he set out to achieve in this article, Rodrigo gives several examples of civil wars and internal conflicts from the period 1917-1949 to give a wide comparison. This allows the reader to come to their own conclusion based on the variety of different conflicts present.
Sanborn – ‘The Genesis of Russian Warlordism’ by Kieran Donohue
Sanborn begins this article by noting the different ways of defining a ‘Warlord’ -which he defines as ‘a military commander who autonomously exercises political power through the threatening use of force’ – and how the use of the word became more popular in a post-Cold War period when it was used to define unfamiliar political situations. Sanborn then states that he seeks to study warlordism within the context of Russia through the period of war and revolution, with the aim of his article being to analyse the processes that developed over the course of WWI which led to the genesis of Russian warlordism, but also to highlight the ways in which warlordsism manifested itself in Civil War Russia through the experiences of two prominent Russian Warlords – General Lavr Kornilov and Baron Roman von Ungern Shternberg.
Sanborn moves on to state the preconditions that would first need to be met before a change from state rule to warlord rule could be achieved – the biggest necessity being state failure and eventual collapse. A suitable candidate to become a warlord would also be needed, and both conditions would have to occur at the same time. That time came during the First World War. Sanborn catalogues three insecurities which can be seen to lead to state collapse – judicial insecurity, physical insecurity and ethnic insecurity. Sanborn then highlights the importance of this ethnic security, with the annexing and deportation of ethnic Germans and Jews from so called ‘Russian territories’ laying the groundwork for a genesis of warlordism.
The revolution led to the leadership having a lack of legitimacy, which led to many armed men being more loyal to their commander than to high command or even their fellow soldiers. This loyalty along with the desire to be involved in civilian affairs led to the periods first true warlord – Kornilov. Kornilov saw the state of the Russian military in the aftermath of the revolution and sought to strengthen the military once more. This led to conflict between himself and the Provisional Govt. As he wanted not only to have complete autonomy in selecting military commanders, but to reinstate the death penalty for soldiers as well, showing his unwillingness to submit to civilian authority. In the end, Kornilov came to the conclusion that dictatorship was necessary to save the army – however, he never openly admitted this nor that he should be the dictator. However, he eventually did attempt a failed coup and was subsequently dismissed and arrested. This attempted coup destroyed the last remnants of trust between the military and civilian spheres, but also within the army itself between soldiers and officers.
Sanborn catalogues the Russian Civil War as the ‘Playgroiund of Warlords’. Warlords embarked on terror campaigns targeting political groups. Jews were again one of the most affected groups in the west, however civilians were targeted by warlords all across Civil War Russia. The most prominent warlord of this period was von Ungern-Shternberg. Ungern like Kornilov believed fear was a necessity in military discipline, and also harboured a distaste for civilian rule. he also subsequently met the same fate as Kornilov as he was defeated, arrested, tried and executed.
Sanborn concludes by stating that warlordism was inevitable in the midst of state collapse and a brutal war. He then questions why men such as Trotsky never made a power grab, concluding that politicians who become involved in military affairs are more aware of the pitfalls of combining both military and political power than military men who seek to become involved in the political sphere.
Thanks, Emily and Kieran, for these summaries of the two texts. I like how you pick up on the idea of total war, Emily, and I wonder what we all think of the relationship of civil war to total war: are civil wars total? Is there a blurred line between the two of them? I also feel I should point out that non-combatant deaths in Spain were outnumbered by combatant deaths, but the margin is not as large as we may expect (Rodrigo doesn’t phrase this particularly clearly).
Kieran has shown how Sanborn has argued that particular circumstances need to align for warlordism to occur. I wonder how far we find the idea of warlordism is useful and convincing for explaining the violence of civil war? This is something we’ll try to get our teeth into in the seminar.
I like Rodrigo’s article as it gives a good overview of European civil conflict. His point about the erosion of that distinction between civilians & combatants is particularly telling and most likely explains why civilians were subject to atrocities in both the Russian Civil War (RCW) and the Spanish Civil War. The point made about ‘purging’ is particularly interesting, and it is a point also made in Holquist’s ‘Making war, forging revolution’ regarding de-cossackization during the RCW. The way I interpret this is that because a revolution is, to some extent, defining a new social order, the revolutionaries believe they have the right to determine who lives and who doesn’t in this new state – they make the rules of war. Although this is not an integral characteristic of every civil war, I think it is particularly telling about the RCW.
I also enjoyed Sanborn’s article. He provides good discussion on the run up to the RCW. I think the importance of WWI in all of this cannot be understated, and I think he rightfully states how borderland areas of the Russian Empire were most effected and this led to many civilian insecurities, these people felt displaced by their Empires and were also subject to extreme violence by army generals with too much authority. Finally, I think it is important that they mention the anti-Semitic element of violence both in WWI and the RCW, but I would have liked them to develop this further.
I also liked the Rodrigo article and I find the point about the relationship between civil war and total war particularly interesting. I do think that they embody a lot of similar traits particularly in the treatment of civilians and the high number that get caught up in the violence resulting in a lot of civilian deaths. While I am not sure civil war could be completely described as total, I think the lines can be blurred in the discussion. Civil war could be described as total in the country where the violence is taking place as often civil wars involve a multitude of different aspects the same way as the concept of total war.
I enjoyed Sanborns article and I enjoyed the section in which he was discussing the effects of WW1 and the implementation of martial law in the regions of Russia that saw conflict. As discussed in the class this could be viewed as the catalyst for the introduction of Warlordism as those Generals and officers gained a feel for power as people began to have more loyalty to their commanding officers than the nation.
Sorry i must have picked the part about the Spanish civilian deaths in article up wrong i found it quite a confusing read at times. I think any type of war where there are a high number of non-combatant deaths or injuries can be considered a total war, even mass disruption to civilian life could be considered a factor in making a war considered to be total.
Rodrigo’s article was really interesting, I thought his concept of civil wars as ‘purges’ definitely made sense, where each side seeks to remove their enemies from positions of power, or just kill them, so that there is less opposition to the implementation of their agenda if they manage to win. I wonder how unique this is to civil wars though, as it’s also something we see in WW2 when Nazi occupation authorities killed Polish officials and intelligentsia to disrupt any organised opposition.
I really enjoyed reading Rodrigo’s article, i thought it was very interesting to read his opinion on total war and civil war and what kind of connection they had. I thought his description of civil war as ‘purges’ was something I had never seen them be described as before but I agreed with. This blog is very well written and gives an insight into civil war and how total war can be related to this or if it can at all.
Really insightful reading. I also do not believe that all civil wars can be classed as ‘Total’. A total War pursues an overall goal through any means necessary, whereas civil wars, such as Mussolini’s rise to power, was achieved mostly through fear of violence rather than full on violence. Therefore some civil wars can be described as total but not others.