Rif War 1920-1926

Discussions on other historical eras.
durb
Member
Posts: 627
Joined: 06 May 2014, 10:31

Re: Rif War 1920-1926

#16

Post by durb » 06 Mar 2015, 12:32

I remember to have read that Spaniards used poison gas during Rif War and also destroyed several villages killing civilians - in today´s terms some of their actions would be considered "genocide", I guess. For the little that I have read, the Rif war was quite dirty affair and often badly managed by the Spanish side. Not much "glory" although it produced some battle-hardened and competent military commanders who would later have important role in Spanish politics and Civil War. My sympathies go for more for the other side - I think that the cause of locals was more "patriotic" and thus also more justified. Spaniards were just rather brutal colonialists without any "civilizing" effect. It is also questionable if Spain really gained some real economical benefits in their colonial adventures in North Africa - was it worth of all sacrifices?

Still taking the above in account, it is interesting that Spaniards had no difficulty to recruite locals to their colonial army and to be used later in Spanish Civil War. I have read an anecdote about one Moroccan soldier stating that he went willingly to fight in Spanish Civil War because it was a good chance to kill some Spaniards and even to be paid for that by Spaniards...

User avatar
Ironmachine
Member
Posts: 5821
Joined: 07 Jul 2005, 11:50
Location: Spain

Re: Rif War 1920-1926

#17

Post by Ironmachine » 06 Mar 2015, 14:34

durb wrote:I remember to have read that Spaniards used poison gas during Rif War and also destroyed several villages killing civilians - in today´s terms some of their actions would be considered "genocide", I guess.
Yes, Spain used poison gas during the Rif War. However, I can't see how some of "their" actions could be considered "genocide" in today's terms; war crimes, probably, but so could some of the actions taken out by the Riffeans. However, today's terms are of no application to yesterday's actions, so whatever...
durb wrote:For the little that I have read, the Rif war was quite dirty affair and often badly managed by the Spanish side.
Yes, specially for the first part of the war, until Annual. But it must be said that the Riffeans managed the affair even worse at the end...
durb wrote:My sympathies go for more for the other side - I think that the cause of locals was more "patriotic" and thus also more justified.
It is very questionable how much "patriotic" the Riffean side was, and I can't see how "more patriotic" immediately equates to "more justified", but of course your sympathies can go where you want...
durb wrote:Spaniards were just rather brutal colonialists without any "civilizing" effect.
Well, regarding being "just rather brutal colonialists" the Spaniards had much to learn from other European powers, and they indeed had some "civilizing effect" in the area. Not that this justifies anything, however.
durb wrote:It is also questionable if Spain really gained some real economical benefits in their colonial adventures in North Africa - was it worth of all sacrifices?
I would say that the answer to those questions is a clear no. But in general I don't think that colonial adventures in that period were worth the sacrifices for any European country.
durb wrote:Still taking the above in account, it is interesting that Spaniards had no difficulty to recruite locals to their colonial army and to be used later in Spanish Civil War.
Can't see how that could have been difficult when Spain had no difficulty to recruite locals for fighting against their "compatriots" during the Rif War...


durb
Member
Posts: 627
Joined: 06 May 2014, 10:31

Re: Rif War 1920-1926

#18

Post by durb » 06 Mar 2015, 18:09

Someone who fights to defend his country against invader or liberate it from the foreign oppression just somehow feels to me to be more righteous in his combat than the one who just wants to make and maintain conquests by dominating foreign people. Abd El-Krim is perhaps a controversial character but still he can be considered as the one who was making a step toward a local nation building in that area. And a kind of figure of local "Reconquista" - to take over the colonized areas from the Europeans with at least the same "right" as the Christian Spanish kingdoms "reconquered" Spain.

In the end all colonial empires break up when colonies start to revolt in one form or another. Only some tiny remnants have remained, because sometimes local identity can for variety of reasons be linked more to the colonial "mothercountry" than to the surrounding province which became part of new national state. I think that the British were reasonably realistic and wise by letting their empire to break up without too much violence after WW2. French, Portuguese and Dutch chose the other way and paid expensive price for it.

Spaniards would probably never have beaten Abd El-Krim by alone - for that they needed the help of the French (to whom Abd El-Krim ultimately surrendered). The biggest error of Abd El-Krim was that he tried too much - to confront both the Spaniards and the French. He overestimated the chances of "national liberation war" because the local nationalism was not yet enough developed and the combined Spanish/French forces just too much for his limited resources. It is not a wonder that he was ultimately beaten but rather the question is how he and his rather small forces managed to hold out so long against superior enemy and even managed to defeat enemy many times.

And yes the help of the locals was most vital for Spanish/French victory - the bulk of all colonial armies was built by recruiting locals in colonized areas. The incentives were sometimes voluntary like money and other rewards, sometimes forced recruitment took place. But the latter was of course worse because it would give rather unreliable soldiers to defect in first possible opportunity. Reasonable and even more importantly reliable payment was better motive to recruit for poor local man who wanted to maintain his family. And in those days Arab/Berber nationalism was just very nascent with pioneers like Abd El-Krim - it was not yet widespread movement in local society which could have exerted effective social or even violent pressure against those who were "betraying the national cause". The local "national cause" was just taking its first steps to form in social movement and local factionalism was yet stronger than any wider nation-building ideas. Abd El-Krim was "ahead of his time", one could say.

And when it comes to the cruelties of Rif war by both sides- well, quite much and perhaps even worse was later repeated in Spanish Civil War...

User avatar
Ironmachine
Member
Posts: 5821
Joined: 07 Jul 2005, 11:50
Location: Spain

Re: Rif War 1920-1926

#19

Post by Ironmachine » 06 Mar 2015, 18:42

I think you are seeing far more than there was in the Riffeans' motivations. Abd El-Krim may have had the intention of building a local nation (in which he was really opposing the Sultan of Morocco much more than the Spaniards), an idea that he probably obtained from his "Spanish" education, but it was to be seen whether his "supporters" would have still followed him if, after his triumph, he had tried to impose any kind of real central authority. The Rif at the time was not a unified country in any sense; each tribe has no desire to surrender its power to a central authority. They may join to fight an external enemy, like the Spanish, specially if there was pillage to win, but once the danger passed they quickly return to their own interests, and they could quickly accomodate themselves to a new master if that was advantageous (that's why Spain found no problems in the área after the war). The Riffeans were not really fighting to defend their country (which was non-existant) as much as they were exercising their traditional way of life, which was simply fighting, not really mattering against whom as far as there was something to gain from it.
Had Abd El-Krim achieved any real success it is probably that his main danger had come from within his own ranks.

durb
Member
Posts: 627
Joined: 06 May 2014, 10:31

Re: Rif War 1920-1926

#20

Post by durb » 06 Mar 2015, 19:32

Like I said, Adb El-Krim and his "Rif Republic" were well ahead of his time - the time was not yet ripe for successful "national liberation". Local factionalism was more strong than any wider idea of nation-building or cultural nationalism. It was just a first step of nation-building and nationalism in that area - right or wrong, Abd El-Krim is seen nowadays as a inspiring pioneer of "liberation" in Morocco/Alger. It is likely that had he indeed succeeded (totally unacceptable option for both France and Spain at that time), there would have come internal problems and perhaps even a civil war in his new state. Like it happened much earlier in Latin America and in many other colonies, once the colonial masters were gone or beaten in "liberation war" it was time for other rivalries to be solved out in one way or another. But that is a theoretical question, because Abd El-Krim lost.

I think that Abd El-Krim managed to do quite well with his limited resources and slim chances against the technologically superior and more numerous colonial armies of Spain and France. It showed that militarily he or his associates made some good solutions with right tactics whereas the Spaniards (and French) made some big blunders and had to learn by hard way how to beat militarily much weaker and "less organized" enemy.

User avatar
Ironmachine
Member
Posts: 5821
Joined: 07 Jul 2005, 11:50
Location: Spain

Re: Rif War 1920-1926

#21

Post by Ironmachine » 06 Mar 2015, 22:03

I think that Abd El-Krim managed to do quite well with his limited resources and slim chances against the technologically superior and more numerous colonial armies of Spain and France. It showed that militarily he or his associates made some good solutions with right tactics whereas the Spaniards (and French) made some big blunders and had to learn by hard way how to beat militarily much weaker and "less organized" enemy.
They managed to do quite well, but what really mattered was not what they did well, but what their enemies did bad. Their biggest success, Annual, should never have happened if only basic military precautions had been taken by Silvestre. But in the end the biggest blunder of the war was made by Abd El-Krim, when he attacked the French Protectorate while still fighting the Spaniards. It seems that he never learned how to beat his enemies.

durb
Member
Posts: 627
Joined: 06 May 2014, 10:31

Re: Rif War 1920-1926

#22

Post by durb » 09 Mar 2015, 18:59

Why Abd El-Krim attacked French positions when he was still dealing with the Spaniards? These are just guesses:
- overestimation of own possibilities, some "too easy" victories against Spaniards, perhaps a premature and somewhat megalomanian idea to flare up a big general uprising in all Maghreb area against Europeans and leading that movement...
- or just going for inevitable: how long would French stayed idly watching El-Krim´s successfull war against Spaniards as it was also a threat also to other European control of the area, sooner or later there would be confrontation with French anyway so better to strike against French when some surprise element was still at hand...

I wonder what Abd El-Krim had in his mind at the time - are his diaries, memoirs, written statements of the time or other good background source material to be used for the historians of this conflict?

For many "irrational" decisions there are later some rational explications to be found if one tries to analyze and study carefully the situation of the decision making at the time.

User avatar
Ironmachine
Member
Posts: 5821
Joined: 07 Jul 2005, 11:50
Location: Spain

Re: Rif War 1920-1926

#23

Post by Ironmachine » 10 Mar 2015, 09:15

- or just going for inevitable: how long would French stayed idly watching El-Krim´s successfull war against Spaniards as it was also a threat also to other European control of the area, sooner or later there would be confrontation with French anyway so better to strike against French when some surprise element was still at hand...
The French were happy to leave him deal with Spain, but surely would have jumped in as soon as Spain admitted defeat and leave the area. So for him it was probably a matter of "now or later". However, he only had a chance of success against Spain for as long as he was not fully surrounded by enemy territory, and certainly opening hostilities with France when Spain was far from defeated was a completely stupid move.
I wonder what Abd El-Krim had in his mind at the time - are his diaries, memoirs, written statements of the time or other good background source material to be used for the historians of this conflict?
For many "irrational" decisions there are later some rational explications to be found if one tries to analyze and study carefully the situation of the decision making at the time.
I have seen an interview with Abd El-Krim in which he stated his conviction that other European countries would accept the independence of the Rif. If he was sincere, it is even more difficult to understand why he decided to attack the French. On the other hand, he showed his confidence that if not, they could defeat any new invader. He was probably deceived by the sheer size of the Annual victory, and did not understand the real reasons for it.

durb
Member
Posts: 627
Joined: 06 May 2014, 10:31

Re: Rif War 1920-1926

#24

Post by durb » 27 Mar 2015, 17:11

Looking the opposite forces by the size I wonder how big Abd El-Krim´s forces at their maximum really were at and how big were the actual Spanish/French combat forces opposing them. The little what I have read seems to indicate that Spaniards/French needed to mobilize at least 5-6 times more of men compared to Rif tribes to finally after many reverses crush Abd El-Krim´s rather limited and loosely organized troops. Wiki states that Spanish/French forces would have been together as much as 465 000 men vs. about at most 80 000 irregulars of Abd El-Krim and his associates. And taking in account the technological superiority in form of artillery, airplanes, tanks, machine guns and gas to win such an inferior enemy - somewhat pathetic and inefficient show of force...In the end a won war, but after mediocre overall performance in battlefield (not just Annual).

Of the losses of both sides there it is probably difficult to find real figures, but again wiki states that Spanish/French losses would have been much bigger compared to the combat casualties of Rif tribes.

User avatar
Ironmachine
Member
Posts: 5821
Joined: 07 Jul 2005, 11:50
Location: Spain

Re: Rif War 1920-1926

#25

Post by Ironmachine » 27 Mar 2015, 18:37

I doubt the number stated in Wiki as men fielded by Spain/France is correct, even if as I suspect it included the whole garrison forces of Spanish and French Morocco, of which the main part was not fighting Abd El-Krim. Anyway, it is quite usual in counterinsurgency to field bigger forces than those used by the insurgents, as to actually control the territory, garrison everywhere and proctect very vulnerable supply lines against an enemy that could simply dissappear among the civilian population.
On the other hand, artillery, airplanes, tanks, machine guns and gas were of limited use (and it should be noted that some of those were just footnotes of this war) against an enemy that was not willing to fight a set-piece battle unless forced by the circumstances.
Yes, it was not a brilliant demonstration of capacity on the part of the European forces... but it should be noted that in the end it was a definitive victory, as the territory remained in peace for a very long time, which is more than can be said of other counterinsurgency conflicts that were fought with more artillery, airplanes, tanks and the like.

Post Reply

Return to “Other eras”