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.