CHAPTER XII. García Oliver, Largo Caballero, and the problem of Morocco

When the press reported on Durruti’s speech, each paper interpreted it according to its political color. The Communists and Socialists focused exclusively on Durruti’s call to ship arms to the front. The PSUC newspaper used it as an opportunity to polemicize against the “uncontrollables,” who fled the battle fronts and kept weapons in the rearguard that were needed in the trenches. It also made veiled attacks on the Revolutionary Committees and openly criticized the unions and collectives. The paper inveighed against “utopian economic experiments” and told people to focus on producing with efficient structures of command and obedience. It wasn’t the time to make a revolution, but to defend the Republican legality that the fascists had put in jeopardy. [607]

The Barcelona Revolutionary Committees were the first to react against this onslaught. They held a large assembly and decided to release a statement:[608]

The defense groups will not lay down their arms while the problem of political power is still unresolved and there is an armed force that obeys the Madrid government and that isn’t under workers’ control. Our weapons are the best guarantee of the revolutionary conquests.

Solidaridad Obrera did not respond to the attack on the Revolutionary Committees but did defend the collectives. It said that such assaults on the workers’ victories would only lead to defeat, since it was the proletariat’s revolutionary enthusiasm that drove resistance to the fascists. No worker would sacrifice his life for a war stripped of its revolutionary character or to defend a government like the one that existed before July 19. [609]

It was during the course of these debates that workers in Sabadell, a town near Barcelona, discovered that weapons taken from Barcelona’s Karl Marx Barracks had been stored in that town’s PSUC building. The unions, sensitized to the issue by Durruti’s speech, sent a group to Bujaraloz to report the finding to the Column’s War Committee. The news circulated among the militiamen and the Centuria Committee sent an ultimatum to the CCAMC saying that it had to immediately recover the arms being held by the PSUC or they would solve the problem themselves.

This was an explosive issue within the Durruti Column. The War Committee telephoned Santillán and Ricardo Sanz, leaders of the Department of Militias in the CCAMC, and demanded that they acquire the arms at once. Santillán realized that the Centuria Committee had not made its threat in vain. He immediately contacted the Karl Marx Barracks and told them that they were risking an armed confrontation if they didn’t hand over the weapons. Whether it was because they were frightened or simply didn’t think the time to do battle had arrived, they produced the eight machine-guns stored in Sabadell. [610]

Barcelona was in the midst of these conflicts when Pierre Besnard, the AIT’s General Secretary, arrived in Spain for the first time on September 15. The CNT was a member of the AIT and Besnard had previously addressed CNT-related issues by mail exclusively. However, when he saw that the Spanish revolution had begun to retreat, he decided to travel from the AIT’s office in Paris to Spain and intervene more directly. When he got to Barcelona, he met with the CNT’s Catalan Regional Committee and with CNT men in the CCAMC. He told them that “internationalizing the struggle is the only way to get the Spanish revolution out of the mire into which Léon Blum has put it.” Toward that end, Pierre Besnard advanced a detailed plan for inciting a rebellion among the Moroccan tribes (in the Spanish Protectorate), beginning with the escape of Abd el-Krim, [611] whom the French had banished to Reunión Island in 1926. The revolt in Morocco would coincide with a revolution in Portugal, a country allied with Franco. With respect to Portugal, he said that he had good relations with the country’s opposition and that they appeared willing to participate in the action against the Salazar dictatorship. Portugal’s Confederación General del Trabajo, another AIT affiliate, would also play a role. Besnard thought the rebellions in Morocco and Portugal could be extraordinarily important in themselves and very beneficial to the Spanish revolution. He also mentioned that before leaving Paris he had met with Léon Jouhaux and other Socialists who were opposed to Léon Blum’s nonintervention policy and that they had authorized him to speak in their names in an effort to convince Largo Caballero to publicly declare that Spain would grant independence to the Rif and the whole Spanish Protectorate. [612]

García Oliver told Pierre Besnard that he needed to think about his idea and also that they should inform Durruti about the matter, so that he could partake in the discussion. He spoke with Durruti by telephone, who arrived in Barcelona that very day. During their meeting, García Oliver reported on the negotiations that they had been having with the Moroccans since July: they were going well and the Moroccan Action Committee (MAC) was going to send a group to Barcelona to discuss how they could help the Republican government fight the rebels.

In the document that we utilize to explore this intricate issue, Pierre Besnard puts great emphasis on the differences that Durruti and Santillán had with García Oliver regarding the Moroccan question, but says nothing about García Oliver’s dialogues with the MAC. However, it is difficult to believe that the AIT General Secretary was unaware of these discussions and that is why we assert above that García Oliver detailed his conversations with the MAC. Besnard’s document is somewhat confusing, but we think that when he affirms Durruti and Santillán leaned toward Abd el-Krim, he means that they thought the exiled Moroccan leader’s participation would be more effective than that of the Fez dignitaries, which is not to suggest that they preferred Abd el-Krim over the MAC. There were obvious reasons to focus on the Fez dignitaries: they were not imprisoned and were one hour by plane from Barcelona, while Abd el-Krim was incarcerated and thousands of kilometers from the Rif. Considering the French position in Morocco, particularly in relation to Abd el-Krim, Pierre Besnard’s plan was absolutely fanciful and had no chance of success, despite the sympathetic response he had received from Socialists opposed to Léon Blum’s policy.

The participation of Abd el-Krim and the MAC in Pierre Besnard’s scheme presumed that the Spanish government would agree to declare Morocco independent. Given the support that Besnard had among the French Socialists and also the Secretary General of the French CGT, if he managed to interest Largo Caballero in the Moroccan matter, then his attempt to incite insurrection among the tribes in the Rif would start to look promising. In an effort to help Besnard in his discussions with Largo Caballero, García Oliver informed Lluís Companys about the meeting and its purpose, who told Largo Caballero what Besnard had to confer with him about and also indicated that he thought these issues were very important to the Republican cause.

Pierre Besnard left for Madrid on September 16, but bad weather forced his plane to stop in Valencia and he was detained there until the following day. He reached the Spanish capital around noon on September 17. Besnard went to the Ministry of War as soon as he arrived in Madrid and was informed that the Prime Minister was not there to receive him. Besnard then went to the CNT National Committee, where Federica Montseny, who happened to be in the capital at the time, was delegated to accompany him. Largo Caballero received the two at 5:00 pm but alleged that he was in a very bad mood because of an “incident” he had just had with the CNT. It was obvious to all that Largo Caballero was simply trying to escape a discussion of the Moroccan plan. Federica Montseny angrily told him that such vital matters could not be postponed with excuses about vague “incidents.” Federica’s attitude impressed the Socialist leader and he seemed to calm down, although he did not agree to hold the meeting immediately but rather set it for 4:00 pm the next day.

Pierre Besnard was waiting in the antechamber at the designated hour on September 18, this time with the CNT General Secretary David Antona. Largo Caballero did not see them until sixty minutes later [613] and, when he did, greeted them in a cold, discourteous manner. Then, without preamble, he said that he could not meet with the AIT Secretary and apologized for all the confusion. Besnard insisted, telling him that he represented an international organization to which the CNT belonged, a workers’ confederation that was equally or even more important than the UGT. Largo Caballero hesitated for a moment, perhaps because he hadn’t expected an attitude as arrogant as his own, but claimed that such important questions should be discussed in another psychological climate. We have good reason to assume that all this was a charade on Largo Caballero’s part. By not talking about the topic, he could allege ignorance of the issue if a French colleague were to reproach him. “We separated,” writes Besnard, “after a bittersweet exchange of words.” David Antona reported on the exchange to the rest of the National Committee. According to Besnard, they “took note without reacting.” Pierre Besnard later drafted an open letter to Largo Caballero, which the National Committee promised to publish. The text did not touch on important points but simply declared that there should be mutual respect between the CNT and the UGT. [614]

Besnard returned to Barcelona and told García Oliver about Largo Caballero’s behavior. This concerned García Oliver, because the Moroccan Action Committee representatives had just arrived to discus the Spanish Protectorate.

Besnard recorded his impressions of Spain as he sat in the plane that would take him to Paris:

The revolution is taking a step backward. It isn’t the people’s fault—they fight with unparalleled enthusiasm—but that of their leaders, who are simply following events. The loss of revolutionary initiative is evident in humiliating situations like the one I experienced with Largo Caballero. If the anarchists commit the foolishness of collaborating with Largo Caballero, or simply supporting him, then the revolution will be doomed. The anarchists’ only chance to break out of the deadlock is by making a show of force. But I wonder if the men who lead the CNT today are the same men they were on July 19. The only one who seems to have escaped degradation is Durruti, an original revolutionary who reminds one of the guerrilla Nestor Makhno. Like Makhno, he fights with the people, without separating himself from them. He’s different from the other anarchist leaders in that sense.

Besnard thought Durruti was “superior to the Ukrainian” in many respects, particularly in the control that “Durruti exercises over himself.” [615]

Besnard mentions that he briefly spoke with Durruti in Barcelona before returning to France. Their meeting was hasty because loyalist forces had launched an attack on the fascists in the Column’s sector and Durruti had been called urgently to the front. Nonetheless, Durruti took the time to talk to Besnard about the Column’s armament and asked him to do everything possible to make contact with a munitions dealer that could provide them with abundant and modern weapons.

While Durruti traveled back to the Aragón front, García Oliver devoted himself to diplomatic negotiations with the nationalist Arab leaders from the Moroccan Action Committee.

The first contact with them occurred, as we have noted, in late July. The Moroccan activists in Geneva communicated with Fez and Tetuán (the MAC’s two centers). While they discussed the CCAMC’s proposition, two Frenchmen arrived in Fez: Robert Louzon and David Rousset. The CNT- FAI had delegated the former to lead the initial discussions and the second was there representing the French Section of the Fourth International. [616] Discussions with the two men prompted the MAC to send a group to Barcelona. The young Abdeljalk Torres presided over the delegation. García Oliver describes the encounter:

I remember that one of the Moroccan delegates was named Torres. He was very fond of me and always sent a New Year’s greeting card. I believe he was the son of one of the great Moroccan leaders. I explained my plan to them and they listened to me attentively. It consisted of this: the CCAMC was offering them arms and money to start an uprising in Morocco against Franco’s soldiers and for their country’s independence. I told them that they could ask me for whatever guarantees they thought necessary, but they didn’t respond. They simply said that their mission was to listen to my propositions and, now that they had done so, they would return and report to the Pan-Islamic Committee, which had asked the MAC to act in this matter, Morocco being the first link in the Spanish problem.

An additional phase of those negotiations took place around September 20. García Oliver comments:

The MAC representatives returned and replied to my offer of arms and money for fighting the soldiers in Morocco and defending their country. They stated their points of view:

1. They did not want independence for Morocco at that time because they believed such independence would bring Italian or German aggression upon them and those two nations would be worse for them than the Spaniards.

2. They wanted an autonomy for Morocco similar to what England conceded to Iraq after the First World War.

3. If the two previous points were accepted, they were ready to sign the corresponding agreement, which would come into effect once we achieved the following:

a) That the Spanish Republican government accepts the accord.

b) That the Spain gets the French government to accept it.

Their propositions extracted the problem from a revolutionary framework and placed it in an essentially conservative, legalistic perspective. My position, which I articulated to them repeatedly, consisted of the following: we are experiencing a revolution in Spain and its victory will necessarily affect all our international relations, including those with Morocco. That’s why I urged them to take the revolutionary stance of immediately accepting the fact of independence and letting the right to such independence be granted later. Nevertheless, these representatives of an Arab world still sleeping the secular siesta of submission to the west clung to their conservative mandate, focusing first on the right and later on the fact.

I did not want to jeopardize any advantages that might unexpectedly emerge, so I decided not to break off negotiations and actually accelerated them. I agreed to all their points of view and conditions, while stating my fear that section B would annul the whole agreement and thus delay Moroccan independence indefinitely. We agreed that we would sign three originals of the accord: one for the CCAMC, which I would keep, another for the Republican government, and a third for the MAC. The signing, an act that I shrouded with the greatest possible splendor, took place in the Throne parlor of Barcelona’s General Captaincy. The three MAC representatives and all the General Secretaries and Presidents of the organizations and parties making up the CCAMC participated in the event. A photograph of the group was taken, which was signed and remained in my possession.[617]

If the Spanish and French governments accepted the agreement, the MAC would organize an uprising against Franco in Morocco, oppose the rebel‘s recruitment of Moors, and work to demoralize Moorish troops fighting against the Republic on the Peninsula.

The CCAMC sent a group to inform the Madrid government about the agreement and also to defend it. The following individuals made up the delegation: Aurelio Fernández for the CNT-FAI, Rafael Vidiella for the UGT and PSUC, Jaume Miravitlles for the Esquerra Republicana, and Julián Gorkin for the POUM. Navy Minister Indalecio Prieto was the first person that they met with in Madrid. After they explained the plan to him, he said:

I agree with the deal you’ve signed. I’m even ready to support it at the next cabinet meeting and ask for the approval of credits to buy arms for the Moroccans. And if the struggle in Spanish Morocco has repercussions in French Morocco, it just gets better and better.

The meeting with Largo Caballero was not as positive. Rodolfo Llopis introduced the delegation to the Prime Minister:

Caballero stood to receive us. When I concluded my brief exposition, he stated: “But you represent an autonomous region and don’t have authority to negotiate or sign deals. Go find those Moroccan delegates and tell them to come deal with me. Then we’ll see.”[618]

There was no reason to let things go to ruin simply for the sake of pride and so the Moroccans were informed that Largo Caballero wanted to speak with them. They met with him and later shared the results of the meeting with David Rousset. He explains:

The Moroccan group met with Largo Caballero in Madrid. He was under heavy pressure from Paris and London, who had learned about the initiative. Who told them? I don’t know, but it was inevitable, and they were openly hostile. Paris’s case was clear: the French had to ask what would happen if the Rif really became independent. So, the Spanish government told the Arab delegates that it could not accept the treaty signed in Barcelona, but that it would provide money and arms in support of efforts against Franco in the Spanish Protectorate. And here we had to wrestle with the behavior of the Moroccan delegation. If I’d been among them, I would have told them to accept the resources, but that wasn’t what transpired. The Moroccans acted as though they represented a bourgeois movement that wouldn’t do anything without all the necessary political guarantees. They told Largo Caballero... that they were ready to immediately begin actions in the terms identified in the treaty signed in Barcelona, which was the same sort of pact that Franco had made with Syria.[619]

We conclude our discussion of this important and ignored chapter of the Spanish revolution—in which all the sources that we have consulted coincide almost completely, something truly rare in history—by citing Allal el Fassi, one of the Moroccan representatives:

A group of Spanish Republicans went to Geneva to contact Emir Shakib Arslan and discuss the matter with him. The Emir told them that only our committee [the MAC] could undertake the project, assuming its demands were met, of course. In September 1936, the Catalan government gave our delegation a reception proper to diplomatic officers. The conversations occurred in an environment of understanding and mutual respect.... But the Catalan representative’s efforts were in vain and the agreement remained a dead letter.

Allal el Fassi explains why:

After a discussion between the two groups, Madrid’s Minister of Foreign Relations [ Julio Alvarez del Vayo] was very circumspect and asked to delay the decision until the French government could be consulted. We learned afterwards that the Spanish Minister had consulted the French Government, which in its turn sought the views of General Nogues [France’s representative in its zone in Morocco]. The General rejected the plan outright, while Monsieur Herriot threatened the most serious measures if Spain went ahead with the plan, which in his view was sheer madness. The Madrid government communicated orally to our delegation its inability to grant independence in the existing circumstances; it asked us to accept the sum of forty million pesetas for publicity on behalf of Spanish democracy, together with the promise that after victory had been achieved the Republic would strive for the well-being of Morocco. Our delegation protested against this mean offer and indignantly withdrew from the conference meeting.[620]

The Spanish revolution was under siege from that moment onward.