852.00/6132
The Ambassador in Spain (Bowers), Then in France, to the Secretary of State
[Received July 31.]
Sir: I have the honor to report that the press, both in governmental and insurgent Spain, observed the first anniversary of the beginning of the war with elaborate articles, mostly propaganda. One full year of war with nothing decisive accomplished yet on either side has nevertheless made some things clear that were confused in the beginning because of the intensive propaganda.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . .
III
The civil war ceased to be a civil war many months ago when great numbers of the Italian and German armies were brought into Spain. There have been volunteers—individuals actually volunteering—from many countries and on both sides, and even under these conditions the war could be called a civil war. But when thousands of the army of Italy came under their own officers, with their own equipment, even in many instances in their own uniforms, and when thousands of [Page 363] German officers, technicians, and aviators came with their own planes, it became a mockery to continue calling the war a real civil war.
The Spanish Government today is notoriously at war with Italy and Germany.
While General Franco in his address to the American people sent out by the United Press said that he had no foreigners in his army—and I called attention at the time to the absurdity of that statement—there no longer is the slightest pretence that there are not many thousands of the Italian army engaged and thousands of Germans. The Rome papers report enthusiastically on news pictures showing the Italian army marching, first of all, into Bilbao, and Salamanca this week announces that “20,000 Italian soldiers” have been sent to reen-force the defence on the Madrid front.
Thus this is clear after a year:—
This is a war against the Republic.
It is frankly a war to destroy democracy in Spain.
It is a war of Italy and Germany against the Spanish Government.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . .
VI
The experiment of almost a full year with the Non-intervention Pact leaves no doubt in my mind that nonintervention has prolonged the war. It was proposed in the beginning by Britain and France on the theory, probably correct, that a competition between the democratic and fascist states in furnishing arms and ammunition to the two sides would cause incidents leading to war. If the Non-intervention Pact had been honestly observed and honestly enforced it would have served its purpose; though, of course, it operated against the Government in that it deprived it of its right under international law to buy arms and ammunitions.
It has been clearly shown that Italy and Germany signed the Pact with fingers crossed. The result is that it has operated entirely against the Government and in favor of the insurgents.
Thus: When the Pact was proposed England and France instantly shut down on the sale of arms and ammunition to the Government. It was many days before Italy and Germany agreed and during this time both were hurrying arms and ammunition to the insurgents. This was known to both Britain and France, who, however, preferred to pretend not to see.
Later, in the matter of control, Britain and France at once acted, but Italy and Germany “discussing” the matter continued their violations of their agreement, and a great number of Italian and German soldiers were hurried in. Again this was known to Britain and France who again pretended not to see.
[Page 364]In brief, the Non-intervention agreement has been notoriously a mockery. It is today. Nothing surely will be more puzzling to the historian of these times than the appeals made by Britain and France to Italy and Germany to join in the enforcement of the Pact while no secret is made of the participation of a great Italian army in the war, while Franco himself announces that he has sent 20,000 Italian soldiers to the Madrid front, and Rome celebrates the triumph of an Italian army in Bilbao.
The fact remains that there is a feeling here in diplomatic circles that with the abandonment of non-intervention a European war is almost inevitable. It seems to me that the decision was reached months ago to sacrifice the democracy of Spain to the peace of Europe. My own impression is that with every surrender, beginning long ago with China, followed by Abyssinia and then Spain, the fascist powers, with vanity inflamed, will turn without delay to some other country—such as Czechoslovakia—and that with every surrender the prospects of a European war grow darker.
VII
Our own position during the entire year has been all that could be desired. We have strictly observed our policy of neutrality. We have refused to join most of our colleagues in faking passports, in converting our Embassy and Consulates into hiding places for participants in the struggle, and this, while obnoxious to the infuriates, has won us the confidence of responsible people of both sides. We almost alone at this moment can approach either side on official business with the certainty that they will do all within their power to serve us. Strangely enough, Britain, which almost alone has followed our policy, is bitterly hated by the insurgents. I can ascribe this only to the feeling of the insurgents that Britain should have recognized the Franco Government along with Italy and Germany.
We have gone through a year without an incident of the slightest consequence.
My impression is, from everything I have heard and from conversations with both sides, that both wish to retain the good-will of the United States with the view to the future, after a victory is won, and when business and money will be needed. Before the war Barcia, Azaña’s Minister of Foreign Affairs, probably explained it all when he said to me that “we can deal in a business way with the United States without involving ourselves politically because the United States is remote from the intrigues of European politics”.
Respectfully yours,