22 August 2024: Due to technical disruption, we are experiencing some delays to publication. We are working to restore services and apologise for the inconvenience. For further updates please visit our website: https://www.cambridge.org/universitypress/about-us/news-and-blogs/cambridge-university-press-publishing-update-following-technical-disruption
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 11 December 2015
Civil War broke out in Spain in 1936. Following eight years of dictatorship by General Primo de Rivera, who had acted with the approval of King Alfonso XIII, elections were held in June, 1931, for a constituent assembly. The election returns brought in a republican-socialist majority, which forbade the king’s return, confiscated his property, and proclaimed Spain a republic. The republic had enemies on both the right and the left. The large landholders, the army, and the Church had vested interests which the republic proceeded to attack. On the left, the anarchists and socialists became more /radical, competing for the loyalty of the Spanish workers. The republic’s problems were compounded by the traditional separatist movements of Catalans, Basques, and Gallegans. Power shifted from the left in 1931 to the right in 1933, and, finally, in February, 1936, to a “popular front “government. The Popular Front, however, proved to be a coalition for election purposes only. Largo Caballero, the leader of the left wing of the socialists, declined to serve in the moderate Azaña cabinet. In July, 1936, army, monarchist, clerical, and Carlist groups joined with the Falange to bring about a counter-revolutionary coup under the leadership of General Francisco Franco. The Civil War had started. It was to last for three brutality-filled years.
A Woodrow Wilson Fellowship and a John Hay Whitney Foundation Opportunity Fellowship enabled the author to prepare this study.
1 Taylor, Foster Jay, The United States and the Spanish Civil War (New York, 1956), p. 39 Google Scholar. However, the Buenos Aires correspondent of The Times (London) maintained that Chile had “not received immigrants on an appreciable scale during the past century,” and thus had no big Spanish-born community (“S. America and the War,” Aug. 24, 1937, p. 9).
2 Gil, Enrique, “Repercussions of the Spanish Crisis in Latin America,” Foreign Affairs, XV (April, 1937), 547 CrossRefGoogle Scholar; “S. America and the War,” The Times (London), Aug. 24, 1937, p. 9.
3 de Madariaga, Salvador, Spain, A Modern History (New York, 1958), p. 517 Google Scholar; Toynbee, Arnold J., Survey of International Affairs 1938 (New York, 1920-), I, 673 Google Scholar; Hubbard, John R., “How Franco Financed His War,” The Journal of Modern History, XXV (Dec, 1953), 394, 401, 406Google Scholar; “S. America and the War,” The Times (London), Aug. 24, 1937, p. 9 Google Scholar. Genaro Arbaiza, “Latin America: Boycott Fascism! “Nation, June 5, 1937, p. 643, although an obviously biased source, maintained that the majority in Latin America, “students, workers, professionals, writers, artists, teachers,” would be more pro-Republic if the ruling cliques did not suppress news favorable to the Republic. See also Peiro, Francisco, “A Voyage to South America,” Spain: Semi-Monthly Publication of Spanish Civil War Events, May 1, 1938, pp. 5, 7Google Scholar. Father Peiro was a Jesuit who spoke in five South American countries in favor of the Nationalists. Burton, Wilbur, “Dictators for Neighbors,” Current History, XLVII (Oct., 1937), 67 Google Scholar.
4 Toynbee, , Survey International Affairs 1931, II, 211, 213, 390Google Scholar; Rubio, Julián María, “Nationalist Spain and the South American Countries,” Spain, March 1, 1939, pp. 18–19 Google Scholar; Arbaiza, op. cit., p. 644. Stephen Naft, “Fascism and Communism in South America,” Foreign Policy Reports, Dec. 15, 1937, p. 236, maintained that of the South American governments only Colombia had not expressed its sympathy for Franco.
5 For the anti-Franco policy of Mexico see: Smith, Lois Elwyn, Mexico and the Spanish Republicans (Berkeley, 1955), pp. 198–207 Google Scholar; “S. America and the War,” The Times (London), Aug. 24, 1937, p. 9 Google ScholarPubMed; Toynbee, , Survey International Affairs 1937, II, 211.Google Scholar
6 Chargé d’affaires Cox to Secretary of State, Buenos Aires, Aug. 18, 1936, United States, Department of State, Papers Relating to the Foreign Relations of the United States, 1936 (Washington, 1862-), II, 492 Google Scholar. Cited hereafter as U. S. Foreign Relations 19-.
7 Reconocimiento de S.E. El Señor Embajador de la República Española, Don Angel Ossorio y Gallardo, el 15 de julio de 1938, Argentine Republic, Ministerio de Relaciones Exteriores y Culto, Memoria presentada al Honorable Congreso Nacional correspondiente al período 1938–1939 (Buenos Aires, 1865-) (hereafter cited as Argentine Minister of Foreign Relations, Memoria al Congreso 19—.), I, 252. For other statements of neutrality see Mensaje Presidencial, mayo 14, 1937, Argentine Republic, Congreso Nacional, Cámara de Diputados, Diario de sesiones de la Cámara de Diputados año 1937 (Buenos Aires, 1937), I, 18, 32 Google Scholar; Report of Minister for Foreign Relations Cantilo, José María, Argentine Minister of Foreign Relations, Memoria al Congreso 1936–31, I, 84 Google Scholar; League of Nations, Official Journal, Special Supplement, No. 169 (1937), p. 104.
8 In August, 1937, Uruguay proposed that Franco be given belligerency status, but Argentina was opposed. Minister in Uruguay, Lay, to Secretary of State, Montevideo, Aug. 28, 1937, U. S. Foreign Relations 1931, I, 380; Chargé in Uruguay, Reed, to Secretary of State, Montevideo, Sept. 8, 1937, ibid., p. 391. See also Directivas relativas al viaje del Crucero “25 de Mayo,” Buenos Aires, Aug. 7, 1936, Argentine Minister of Foreign Relations, Memoria al Congreso 1936–31, I, 32–33. Earlier, in November, 1936, a rumor that Argentina, Brazil, and Chile were planning to recognize Franco was reported, but the action did not materialize (The New York Times, Nov. 20, 1936, p. 1).
9 Press release Sept. 27, 1937, Argentine Minister of Foreign Relations, Memoria al Congreso 1931–38, I, 42.
10 When it recognized Franco in 1939, Argentina announced that it had taken a position of “prescindencia [neutrality] since the beginning of the Spanish internal conflict “(Press release, Feb. 25, 1939, Argentine Minister of Foreign Relations, Memoria al Congreso 1938–39, I, 173). In an editorial, the Nation, Dec. 17, 1938, p. 649, maintained that the government was sympathetic toward Franco. Also, see sources cited in footnotes 3 and 4.
11 Uruguay Minister for Foreign Relations, José Espalter to Secretary of State Hull, Montevideo, Aug. 15, 1936, United States, Department of State, Press Releases (Washington, 1929-1939), XV, 175 Google Scholar; Acting Secretary of State to Diplomatic Representatives in Argentina, Brazil, Chile, and Mexico, Washington, Aug. 17, 1936, U. S. Foreign Relations 1936, II, 490–91; Uruguayan Minister Richling to Secretary of State, Washington, Aug. 17, 1936, ibid.; Taylor, U. S. and Spanish Civil War, pp. 62–63; Thomas, Hugh, The Spanish Civil War (New York, 1961), p. 260 Google Scholar; The New York Times, Aug. 17, p. 3; Aug. 20, p. 3; Aug. 21, p. 1, 1936.
12 Chargé in Argentína Cox to Secretary of State, Buenos Aires, Aug. 18, 1936, II, 492. Most of the other important Latin American nations and the United States rejected the Uruguay offer on the grounds that the rebels had not been recognized as belligerents; see “Non-Intervention in Spain,” Foreign Policy Bulletin, Aug. 28, 1936, pp. 1–2 Google Scholar; Buell, Raymond Leslie, “U. S. Neutrality in the Spanish Conflict,” Foreign Policy Reports, Nov. 15, 1937, p. 209 Google Scholar; Toynbee, , Survey International Affairs 1931, II, 271–72 Google Scholar; Madariaga, Spain, p. 535; The New York Times, Aug. 20, 1936, p. 3; Ambassador in Chile, Philip, to Secretary of State, Santiago, Aug. 18, 1936, U. S. Foreign Relations 1936, II, 494; Ambassador in Mexico, Daniels, to Secretary of State, Mexico, Aug. 18, 1936, ibid., p. 495.
13 Garcia Mansilla to Argentine Minister of Foreign Affairs Ciboure, Aug. 25, 1936, Argentine Ministry of Foreign Relations, Memoria al Congreso 1936–31, I, 48; Toynbee, , Survey International Affairs 1937, II, 377-78Google Scholar.
14 Ibid., II, 378.
15 Telegram from Garcia Mansilla to Barcia, n. p., Aug. 29, 1936, printed in Bowers to Secretary of State, Hendaye, Sept. 2, 1936, U. S. Foreign Relations 1936, II, 521. L.R. Bonjeau to Aurello Núñez Morgado, n. p., [ca. Sept. 1, 1936], in Helfant, Henry, The Trujillo Doctrine of the Humanitarian Diplomatic Asylum (Mexico, D.F., 1947), p. 153.Google Scholar
16 Bowers to Secretary of State, Hendaye, Sept. 3, 1936, U. S. Foreign Relations 1936, II, 522; Toynbee, , Survey International Affairs 1937, II, 379 Google Scholar; Madariaga, Spain, p. 535.
17 Report of Minister for Foreign Relations José María Cantilo, Argentine Minister of Foreign Affairs, Memoria al Congreso 1936–37, I, 68.
18 Minister of the Spanish Republican Government, Manuel de Irujo, to Chilean Consul, Barcelona, Nov. 3, 1936, Helfant, Trujillo Doctrine Asylum, p. 207. I presume that Helfant meant the city of La Línea since there is no “Lineal City “in Spain. There are frequent mistranslations in Helfant’s work (including a “the “in the title, obviously an attempt to translate the Spanish “el”). The Enciclopedia universal ilustrada europeo-americana (Barcelona, 1907-1930), XXX, 872 Google Scholar, placed La Línea one kilometer north of Gibraltar and seven kilometers southeast of San Roque.
19 Spanish Minister of State, Rafael Urefia to Núñez Morgado, Valencia, Dec. 4, 1936, Helfant, Trujillo Doctrine Asylum, p. 225.
20 Third Secretary of the U.S. Embassy in Spain, Wendelin, to Secretary of State, Madrid, Nov. 13, 1936, U. S. Foreign Relations 1936, II, 758; Morgado, Aurelio Núñez, Los sucesos de España vistos por un diplomático (Buenos Aires, 1941), p. 242.Google Scholar
21 Wendelin to Secretary of State, Madrid. Nov. 18, 1936, U. S. Foreign Relations 1936, II, 763.
22 See Wilcox, Francis O., “The League of Nations and the Spanish Civil War,” The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, CXCVIII (July, 1938), 65–72 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
23 Report of Minister for Foreign Relations Cantilo, José María, Argentine Minister of Foreign Relations, Memoria al Congreso 1936–31, I, 84 Google Scholar; Ambassador in the United Kingdom, Bingham, to Acting Secretary of State, London, Dec. 9, 1936, U. S. Foreign Relations 1936, II, 597; Ambassador in France, Bullitt, to Acting Secretary of State, Paris, Dec. 9, 1936, ibid., 599–600.
24 Gil, op. cit., pp. 552–553; Discurso pronunciado por el Licenciado Ramón Beteta, Subsecretario de Relaciones Exteriores de México, en la sesión plenaria del 19 de diciembre de 1936, México, Delegación a la Conferencia Interamericana de Consolidación de la Paz, Buenos Aires, 1936, Informe de la delegación de México a la Conferencia Interamericana de Consolidación de la Paz reunida en Buenos Aires, República Argentina del 1° al 23 de diciembre de 1936 (México, 1938), 296.
25 Thomas, op. cit., pp. 405–406.
26 J. de Bivort de La Saudee, “Les martyrs d’Espagne et l’alliance Basco-Communiste,” Revue des Deux Mondes, Feb.79 15, 1940, pp. 703–719; de Aguirre, José Antonio, De Guernica a Nueva York pasando por Berlin (2nd ed.; Buenos Aires, 1944), pp. 32, 34–37.Google Scholar
27 Ambassador in Cuba Wright to Secretary of State, Havana, Oct. 20, 1937, U. S. Foreign Relations 1937, I, 428; Buell, “U. S. Neutrality Spanish Conflict,” Foreign Policy Reports, p. 216; Shepardson, Whitney H. and Scroggs, William O., The United States in World Affairs: An Account of American Foreign Relations 1931 (New York, 1938), p. 299.Google Scholar
28 Actually, from the available sources I could not determine with precision whether Argentina was in favor of mediation but did nothing about it because the other nations did not unanimously support the offer, or if it rejected the proposal outright. Ambassador Wright in Cuba reported that eleven American nations supported the proposal, six expressed hopes of success but regretted that their non-intervention policy precluded any action on their part, and two accepted with the condition that the two parties in Spain be consulted prior to the offer (Wright to Secretary of State, Havana, Jan. 5, 1938, U. S. Foreign Relations 1938, I, 149). See also Wright to Secretary of State, Havana, Dec. 20, 1937, ibid., I, 466–467.
29 Acting Secretary of State to Ambassador Wright in Cuba, Washington, Oct. 30, 1937, U. S. Foreign Relations 1937, I, 441.
30 In July, 1938, Cuba had made another attempt to offer mediation but apparently it was not considered seriously by other American nations (Memorandum of Conversation by the Assistant Chief of the Division of American Republics, Briggs, Ellis O., [Washington], July 7, 1938, U. S. Foreign Relations 1938, I, 225)Google Scholar.
31 Apparently Peru also had a resolution. La Nación (Buenos Aires), Dec. 20, 1938, p. 1, reported that “the Peruvian project on [recognition of] belligerency was abandoned and passed to the study of the experts at the request of the same delegation, which as is known, took a friendly attitude toward the Spanish Nationalist agents. The Peruvian project contemplated the request for a new definition, not only with respect to the Spanish Civil War, but also in the supposed case of conflagration between two countries when there would be no declaration of war [between them], as for example, the situation created between China and Japan.” The project is not found in Argentine Republic, Ministerio de Relaciones Exteriores y Culto, División de Asuntos Jurídicos, La República Argentina en la Octava Conferencia Internacional Americana reunida en Lima del 9 al 27 de diciembre de 1938 (Buenos Aires, 1939).
32 La Nación (Buenos Aires), Dec. 18, 1938, p. 2; Argentine Minsitry of Foreign Relations, Argentina en la Octava Conferencia Americana en Lima 1938, p. 332; The Times (London), Dec. 17, 1938, p. 13.
33 Argentine Ministry of Foreign Relations, Argentina en la Octava Conferencia Americana en Lima 1938, p. 332; La Nación (Buenos Aires), Dec. 18, 1938, p. 2.
34 Shepardson and Scroggs, op. cit., pp. 296–297. It seems that Argentina had foreseen the attempt to include the war on the agenda and specifically prepared to combat it. The Argentine Minister for Foreign Affairs, in a memorandum prepared by him (ca. Oct., 1938, U. S. Foreign Relations 1938, V, 34), stated that the “Argentine Delegation will uphold the desirability of following strictly the pre-established agenda, in order to avoid the unexpected inclusion of projects which might create divergencies or confusion among the delegations.” However, further research is necessary to determine if this provision was intended specifically to keep the civil war from being discussed; Argentina may have had other topics in mind. For the agenda of the meeting see Secretary of State to American Delegation to the Eighth International Conference of American States, Washington, [ca. Nov., 1938], U. S. Foreign Relations 1938, V, 56–57.
35 La Nación (Buenos Aires), Dec. 18, pp. 1, 3, Dec. 20, p. 1, 1938 Google Scholar; The Times (London), Dec. 20, 1938, p. 13 Google Scholar; Argentine Ministry of Foreign Relations, Argentina en la Octava Conferencia Americana en Lima 1938, p. 332; Chairman of the American Delegation, Hull, to Acting Secretary of State, Lima, Dec. 19, 1938, U. S. Foreign Relations 1938, V, 82–83 Google Scholar. See also Shepardson and Scroggs, op. cit., p. 297; and Madariaga, Spain, 542. France had suggested and was in favor of the Pan American Conference offering mediation; Britain did not commit herself but probably was favorable (Chargé in France, Wilson, to Secretary of State, Paris, Dec. 15, 1938, U. S. Foreign Relations 1938, I, 114 Google Scholar; Acting Secretary of State to Secretary of State, Washington, Dec. 10, 1938, ibid., 260, and Acting Secretary of State to Secretary of State, Washington, Dec. 15, 1938, ibid., 261. President Roosevelt seemed to favor the proposal but Secretary of State Hull apparently opposed it (Taylor, op. cit., p. 184).
36 Argentine Ministry of Foreign Relations, Argentina en la Octava Conferencia Americana en Lima 1938, p. 333. Fernando Ortiz Echague, “La Argentina desea conseguir un voto por la paz en España,” La Nación (Buenos Aires), Dec. 16, 1938, p. 1 Google Scholar, reponed that if the delegates of the twenty-one countries faithfully reflected the feelings of their countries, there would be at least fifteen “who openly sympathize with Nationalist Spain and who make allowances for [descuentan] their triumph for the consolidation of their own political regime.” The verb descontar may be translated as “discount “or “make allowances for.” The context favors the latter meaning.
37 La Nación (Buenos Aires), Dec. 20, 1938, p. 1 Google Scholar. Earlier, however, the same newspaper had stated that neither party was willing to accept the Lima mediation proposal (Dec. 16, 1938, p. 3).
38 The New York Times, Dec. 12, p. 10, Dec. 21, p. 12, 1938; La Nación (Buenos Aires), Dec. 20, 1938, p. 1 Google ScholarPubMed; The Times (London), Dec. 21, 1938, p. 13 Google Scholar; Madariaga, Spain, p. 535.
39 For a resume of mediation proposals by other nations see Madariaga, Spain, pp. 534–549. He asserts that neither party represented the desire of the “real “Spanish people for mediation. 40 Proceedings of the Madrid diplomatic corps, July 24, 1936, in Helfant, Trujillo Doctrine Asylum, p. 124.
41 Annex to Proceedings of Assembly July 24, 1936, Madrid [July 24, 1936], Helfant, Trujillo Doctrine Asylum, pp. 125–126; Núñez Morgado, Sucesos España vistos por diplomático, p. 193.
42 Núñez Morgado, Sucesos España vistos por diplomático, p. 189, stated that July 15 was customary date for the ambassadors to leave.
43 The New York Times, Aug. 10, 1936, p. 1.
44 Toynbee, , Survey International Affairs 1937, II, 378 Google Scholar; The Times (London), Aug. 10, 1936, p. 9.Google Scholar
45 Oscar Ibarra Garcia, Subsecretary of Foreign Relations, to Captain Héctor Vernengo Lima, Buenos Aires, Aug. 15, 1936, Argentine Ministry of Foreign Relations, Memoria al Congreso 1936–37, I, 36, 38Google Scholar; The Times (London), Aug. 15, 1936, p. 9 Google Scholar.
46 Padelford, Norman J. and Seymour, Henry G., “Some International Problems of the Spanish Civil War,” Political Science Quarterly, LII (Sept., 1937), 374.Google Scholar
47 Ibid., The New York Times, Aug. 16, 1936, p. 1.
48 Padelford and Seymour, op. cit., p. 374.
43 For a list of the ambassadors and other diplomatic personnel in Madrid during the war, see Núñez Morgado, Sucesos España vistos por diplomático, pp. 189–190.
50 Directivas relativas al viaje del Crucero “25 de Mayo,” Buenos Aires, Aug. 7, 1936, Argentine Ministry of Foreign Relations, Memoria al Congreso 1936–37, I, 31–32 Google Scholar.
51 Núñez Morgado to Spanish Minister of State, Augusto Barcia, Madrid, Aug. 3, 1936, Helfant, Trujillo Doctrine Asylum, p. 140.
52 Rafael de Ureña to Núñez Morgado, Madrid, Aug. 3, 1936, ibid., p. 141.
53 Porceedings Diplomatic Corps, Aug. 13, 1936, Helfant, Trujillo Doctrine Asylum, pp. 145–146; Núñez Morgado, Sucesos España vistos por diplomàtico, pp. 203–204.
54 Núñez Morgado, Sucesos España vistos por diplomático, p. 204.
55 Proceedings Diplomatic Corps, Sept. 6, 1936, Helfant, Trujillo Doctrine Asylum, p. 158.
56 For the Havana Convention on Political Asylum see International American Conference, Sixth, Havana, 1928, Acta final; mociones, acuerdos, resoluciones y convenciones (Havana, 1928).
57 Alvarez del Vayo to Núñez Morgado, Madrid, Oct. 13, 1936, Helfant, Trujillo Doctrine Asylum, pp. 176–178; Núñez Morgado, Sucesos España vistos por diplomàtico, p. 230; Bowers, Claude G., My Mission to Spain: Watching the Rehearsal for World War II (New York, 1954), pp. 300–301 Google Scholar; Third Secretary of Embassy in Spain, Wendelin, to Secretary of State, Madrid, Oct. 18, 1936, 17. S. Foreign Relations 1936, II, 742. See also del Vayo, Julio Alvarez, Freedom’s Battle, trans. Brooke, Eileen E. (New York, 1940), p. 240.Google Scholar
58 Toynbee, , Survey International Affairs 1937, II, 389 Google Scholar; Cásares, Francisco, Argentina-España 1936–37 (Apuntes y recuerdos de un asilado en la embajada argentina de Madrid) (Buenos Aires, 1937), p. 280 Google Scholar; The New York Times, Oct 20, 1936, p. 14.
59 The New York Times, Sept. 29, 1937, p. 12.
60 Padelford and Seymour, op. cit., p. 377. See also Memorandum of Chief of Division of American Representatives, Duggan, of Conversation with First Secretary of Chilean Embassy, Huneeus, [Washington], Sept. 2, 1937, U. S. Foreign Relations 1937, I, 384.
61 Bowers, op. cit., pp. 299, 302. Morgado, Nunez, Sucesos España vistos por diplomático, p. 247 Google Scholar, seemed to support Bowers’ contention in the case of the Finnish chargé. See also Proceedings Diplomatic Corps, Sept. 6, 1936, Helfant, Trujillo Doctrine Asylum, p. 159.
62 For the Havana Convention see footnote 56. For the Montevideo 1933 treaty see U.S. Delegation to the International American Conference, Seventh, Montevideo, 1933, Report of the Delegates of the United States of America to the Seventh International Conference of American States, Montevideo, Uruguay, December 3–26, 1933 (Washington, 1934), pp. 141–144.
63 Helfant, Trujillo Doctrine Asylum, p. 176. See also Proceedings Diplomatic Corps, Aug. 8, 1936, ibid., p. 144; Wendelin to Secretary of State, Madrid, Oct. 13, 1936, U. S. Foreign Relations 1936, II, 737.
64 Bowers, op. cit., p. 300; Proceedings Diplomatic Corps, May 8, 1937, Helfant, Trujillo Doctrine Asylum, pp. 231–232; Arbaiza, op. cit., p. 644.
65 Delegate of Public Order, Serrano Poncela, to Director General of Security, Madrid, Dec. 3, 1936, Helfant, Trujillo Doctrine Asylum; Núñez Morgado to Minister of State in Valencia, Madrid, ca. Dec. 4, 1936, ibid., Alvarez del Vayo to Ambassador of Chile, Valencia, ca. Dec. 6, 1936, ibid., p. 223; ibid., pp. 135, 205–206; Núñez Morgado, Sucesos España vistos por diplomático, 246–250; Wendelin to Secretary of State, Madrid, Oct. 13, 1936, U. S. Foreign Relations 1936, II, 737.
66 Proceedings Diplomatic Corps, May 8, 1937, Helfant, Trujillo Doctrine Asylum, pp. 233, 235. At a speech in the League of Nations on Jan. 25, 1937, Alvarez del Vayo stated that there was “plotting against the Government in the very buildings of the diplomatic representatives” (Hispanicus, [pseud.] ed.), Foreign Intervention in Spain; Documents Collected and Edited by “Hispanicus’” (London, 1938), pp. 639–640 Google Scholar.
67 Madariaga, Spain, pp. 490, 525, 530, 548; Cásares, Argentina-España (Apuntes asilado embajada Argentina Madrid), pp. 188, 189; Núñez Morgado to Spanish Minister of State, Madrid, Jan. 11, 1937, Núñez Morgado, Sucesos España vistos por diplomatico, p. 265; Núñez Morgado to Spanish Minister of State, Madrid, Feb. 1, 1937, ibid., pp. 267–268; ibid., pp. 193, 201, 202, 235; Spanish Minister of State to the Polish Legation in Madrid, Madrid, July 25, 1936, Helfant, Trujillo Doctrine Asylum, p. 120; Proceedings of Diplomatic Corps, Sept. 6, 1936, ibid., p. 160; ibid., pp. 132, 140; Speech of M. Edwards, Chilean Representative, in League of Nations, Jan. 25, 1937, Hispanicus, Documents Foreign Intervention Spain, pp. 623, 631; Report of Minister for Foreign Relations Cantilo, José Maria, Argentine Ministry of Foreign Relations, Memoria al Congreso 1936–31, I, 29, 56Google Scholar; La Nación (Buenos Aires), Sept. 1, 1938, p. 3; President Justo’s Message, May 14, 1937, Diario de sesiones de la Cámara de Diputados 1937, I, 32; Del Vayo, op. cit., p. 240.
68 Ambassador in Argentina, Weddell, to Secretary of State, Buenos Aires, Oct. 20, 1936, U. S. Foreign Relations 1936, II, 744; The New York Times, Oct. 19, p. 15, Oct. 20, p. 14, 1936.
69 Toynbee, Survey International Affairs 1937, II, 389. See also Smith, op. cit., p. 184, n. 28.
70 Weddell to Secretary of State, Buenos Aires, Oct. 22, 1936, U. S. Foreign Relations 1936, II, 746; Toynbee, Survey International Affairs 1937, II, 389. Cuba, Colombia, the Dominican Republic, Chile, and Argentina did inform the Spanish government of their support of the Latin American concept of asylum (Wendelin to Secretary of State, Madrid, Oct. 29, 1936, U. S. Foreign Relations 1936, II, 749). But Chile and Mexico refused to break diplomatic relations if the Madrid government did not recognize their demands (The New York Times, Oct. 21, 1936, p. 3).
71 Argentine Foreign Office to Spanish Minister of State [Buenos Aires], Oct. 21, 1936, Argentine Ministry of Foreign Relations, Memoria al Congreso 1936–37, I, 74–75 Google Scholar; Ambassador in Argentina, Weddell, to Secretary of State, Buenos Aires, Oct. 2Ž, 1936; U. S. Foreign Relations 1936, II, 745–746 Google Scholar. The reference to “the present occasion “probably refers to Ambassador Garcia Mansilla’s successful aid in getting five pro-Franco Spaniards to France. See above, note 8.
72 Pérez Quesada to [Argentine Minister for Foreign Relations], Alicante, [ca. Feb. 28, 1937], Argentine Ministry for Foreign Relations, Memoria al Congreso 1936–37, I, 94; Núñez Morgado to Alvarez del Vayo, Madrid, Oct. 19, 1936, Helfant, Trujillo Doctrine Asylum, p. 194; Núñez Morgado, Sucesos España vistos por diplomàtico, p. 229; speech by Alvarez del Vayo, Jan. 25, 1937 in League of Nations, Hispanicus, Documents Foreign Intervention Spain, p. 641; Cásares, Argentina-España (Apuntes asilado embajada argentina Madrid), pp. 191–192.
73 Report of Minister for Foreign Relations Cantilo, José María, Argentine Ministry of Foreign Relations, Memoria al Congreso 1936–37, I, 87 Google Scholar; Cásares, Argentina-España (Apuntes asilado embajada argentina Madrid), p. 213; The Times (London), Jan. 25, 1937, p. 11.
74 Pérez Quesada to Saavedra Lamas, [Alicante, ca. Jan. 24, 1937], Argentine Ministry of Foreign Relations, Memoria al Congreso 1936–31, I, 90–91; Cásares, Argentina-España (Apuntes asilado embajada argentina Madrid), pp. 215–220. Pérez Quesada, in his telegram to Saavedra Lamas, reported that “the operation was realized without any inconveniences, facilities having been obtained from the Alicante Governor.” However, trouble may have been denied for political reasons. Cásares was a Spanish refugee in the Argentine embassy.
75 Report of Minister for Foreign Relations José María Cantilo, Argentine Ministry of Foreign Relations, Memoria al Congreso 1936–31, I, 92–93; Cásares, Argentina-España (Apuntes asilado embajada argentina Madrid), pp. 220, 224–232. The Argentine Minister for Foreign Affairs maintained, however, that his country had promised not to allow the Spaniards to return to fight and that they had remained in France (Memoria al Congreso 1936–37, I, 92, 134–135). The Madrid correspondent of La Nación (Buenos Aires), Sept. 1, 1938, p. 3, reported that the charge had promised that the refugees would not return but that they did nevertheless. Núñez Morgado, however, reported to the corps that “the charge d’affaires of Argentina asked the Foreign Minister if he wanted the promise of the refugees that they would not joint the rebel forces, when they were freed. The latter replied that he wanted no such word from the refugees; once they were released, they could do as they pleased.” (Proceedings Diplomatic Corps, March 31, 1937, Helfant, Trujillo Doctrine Asylum, p. 226).
76 Argentína assumed control of the refugees in the Uruguayan embassy when the latter severed diplomatic relations with the Republicans in September, 1936. Two sisters of the Uruguayan vice-consul had been murdered by the militia although “they were wearing armlets in the Uruguayan colors and were in possession of certificates from the consular agent of our country.” (Uruguayan Delegate to Secretary General of League of Nations, Geneva, Sept. 23, 1936, League of Nations, Official Journal, XVII (Dec, 1936), 1411 Google Scholar; Toynbee, , Survey International Affairs 1931, II, 214 Google Scholar; President’s Message May 14, 1937, Diario de sesiones de la Cámara de Diputados 1937, I, p. 32. The New York Times, Sept. 23, 1936, p. 7, mistakenly reported that three sisters were killed.
77 Report of Minister for Foreign Relations José María Cantilo, Argentine Ministry of Foreign Relations, Memoria al Congreso 1936–31, I, 86, 92, 96.
78 Directivas relativas al viaje del Crucero “25 de Mayo,” ibid., p. 29; Cásares, Argentina-España (Apuntes asilado embajada argentina), pp. 185, 194–195; Toynbee, Survey International Affairs 1937, II, 388; President Justo’s Message to Congress, May 14, 1937, Diario de sesiones de la Cámara de Diputados, I, 18; Alvarez del Vayo’s speech at League of Nations, Jan. 25, 1937, Hispanicus, Documents Foreign Intervention Spain, p. 639; Alvarez del Vayo to Nunez Morgado, Madrid, Oct. 13, 1936, Helfant, Trujillo Doctrine Asylum, p. 177; Núñez Morgado, Sucesos España vistos por diplomático, pp. 327–328, 329; The New York Times, Aug. 17, 1939, p. 15.
79 Cásares, Argentina-España (Apuntes asilado embajada argentina Madrid), p. 189.
80 Proceedings Diplomatic Corps, Aug. 25, 1936, Helfant, Trujillo Doctrine Asylum, p. 147. However, the Spanish Minister of State, around Aug. 26, 1936, “declared that extraterritoriality was absolute in all buildings occupied by chiefs of missions, but could not be extended any further “(ibid., Aug. 26, 1936, p. 149, and Núñez Morgado, Sucesos España vistos por diplomàtico, p. 208). Apparently this restriction was not applied to its full extent because on Sept. 1, 1936, the Diplomatic Corps received a note from the Minister of State which “was friendly, but vague and unsatisfactory “(Proceedings Diplomatic Corps, Sept. 1, 1936, Helfant, Trujillo Doctrine Asylum, p. 154). The chargé of the Low Countries was allowed to keep refugees in two homes outside the embassy (Rafael Ureña, Minister of State, to R. Flaes, chargé of Low Countries, Madrid, Aug. 26, 1936, Helfant, Trupllo Doctrine Asylum, p. 253, and The New York Times, Aug. 30, 1936, p. 31). The Madrid correspondent of La Nación (Buenos Aires), Sept. 1, 1938, p. 3, reported that the government “conceded the right of extraterritoriality to buildings apart from the embass ies.” Del Vayo, the Spanish Foreign Minister (op. cit., p. 241), wrote that “a large number of annexes were leased during the month of August to house what had become a veritable rebel army.”
81 A separate article could be written on this topic. See, especially, League of Nations, Official Journal, XVIII (1937)Google Scholar; The Times (London), Jan. 16, p. 11, Jan. 22, p. 13, Jan. 26, p. 13, Feb. 20, p. 12, 1937; Núñez Morgado, Sucesos España vistos por diplomatico, pp. 266, 340–360; Toynbee, , Survey International Affairs 1937, II, 389–390 Google Scholar; and Hispanicus, Documents Foreign Intervention Spain, pp. 601–739.
82 Ambassador in Argentina, Weddell, to Secretary of State, Buenos Aires, July 27, 1937, U. S. Foreign Relations 1937, V, 142.
83 Weddell to Secretary of State, Buenos Aires, Aug. 10, 1937, ibid., pp. 144–145; The Argentine Government’s Plan on Right of Asylum 1937, Helfant, Trujillo Doctrine Asylum, pp. 102–108; for the Spanish text and a detailed exposition of the right of asylum, see Proyecto de Convención sobre Derecho de Asilo, Argentine Ministry of Foreign Relations, Memoria al Congreso 1936–37, I, 100–171.
84 Union, Pan American, Manual of Inter-American Relations; A Systematic Classification of the Treaties, Conventions, Resolutions, Declarations, and Recommendations Adopted at Inter-American Conferences and Meetings of Consultation (revised edition, Washington, 1956), 130 Google Scholar. Petty jealousies were partly responsible for inaction. See, for example, Ernesto Bonetti Burgos, Dominican State Secretary of Foreign Relations, to Tulio M. Cestero, Trujillo, Aug. 11, 1937, Helfant, Trujillo Doctrine Asylum, p. 103, which states: “The Dominican Republic, during the Spanish Civil War, demonstrated more initiative and leadership, in the matter of right of asylum, than can be claimed by any other nation. In view of this, it is only right that the proposals of the Dominican Republic should have priority over any others designed to strengthen the practice of right of asylum.”
85 See, for example, Bowers to Acting Secretary of State, St. Jean de Luz, Nov. 9, 1936, U. S. Foreign Relations 1936, II, 556; Bowers to Secretary of State, Hendaye, Aug. 17, 1936; ibid., p. 488; and Bowers, Mission to Spain, pp. 291, 292, 295, 298.
86 Núñez Morgado to Alvarez del Vayo, Madrid, Oct. 19, 1936, Helfant, Trujillo Doctrine Asylum, p. 168; Proceedings Diplomatic Corps, Sept. 25, 1936, ibid., p. 193; ibid., pp. 34–35; Núñez Morgado to Minister of State, Madrid, Jan. 11, 1937, Núñez Morgado, Sucesos España vistos por diplomático, p. 264; ibid., p. 271; Cásares, Argentina-España (Apuntes asilado embajada argentina Madrid), 204.
87 Proceedings Diplomatic Corps, Oct. 16, 1936, Helfant, Trujillo Doctrine Asylum, p. 179. Cuba maintained that in Oct., 1934, it had given asylum to “prominent leftists “(Núñez Morgado, Sucesos España vistos por diplomàtico, pp. 225–226).
88 The New York Times, Aug. 17, 1939, p. 15.
89 Ibid., Aug. 14, 1939, p. 8. See also the Nation, July 1, 1939, p. 3.
90 The New York Times, Aug. 17, p. 15, Aug. 26, p. 5, 1939. For the negotiations among the nations see U. S. Foreign Relations 1939, II, 779–785.
91 Madariaga, Spain, p. 574, n. 3.
92 Press release, Feb. 25, 1939, Argentine Ministry of Foreign Relations, Memoria al Congreso 1938–39, I, 173; La Nación (Buenos Aires), Feb. 15, 18, 25, 26, 27, 28, 1939, p. 1.
