Welcome to Conflict and Intervention: Your History Study Notes!
Hi there! This chapter, Conflict and Intervention, is crucial for your Paper 1 (Source Analysis) and helps build a foundation for understanding modern global politics.
Don't worry if this seems tricky at first—we'll break down complex wars and international interference into simple, digestible steps.
What will we learn? We will study how conflicts (wars, civil wars, and crises) start, why powerful countries or international bodies decide to get involved (intervene), and what happens as a result. We focus on two specific case studies from different regions of the world to compare these dynamics.
Key Concepts to Master
The core concepts here are Causation, Consequence, and Perspectives. Always ask: Why did it happen? What changed? How did different sides view the intervention?
1. Defining Conflict and Intervention
1.1 What is Conflict?
In this context, Conflict refers to sustained, often armed, political and/or ideological disagreement between groups, states, or alliances.
- Interstate Conflict: War between two or more sovereign states (e.g., the Falklands War).
- Intrastate Conflict (Civil War): Conflict within a single state, usually between the government and internal groups (e.g., the Spanish Civil War).
- Proxy Conflict: Wars where major powers support opposing sides in a third country without fighting each other directly (common during the Cold War).
1.2 Understanding Intervention
Intervention is when an external state, group, or international organization deliberately involves itself in the affairs of another state or conflict, usually to influence the outcome.
Analogy: Imagine two students fighting (the conflict). Intervention is when a teacher, a friend, or the principal (external bodies) steps in to stop or influence the fight.
Types of Intervention
Intervention isn't always about sending troops! It can take many forms:
- Military Intervention: Direct deployment of troops, aerial bombing, or providing arms and training. (The most decisive but riskiest form).
- Economic Intervention: Imposing sanctions (cutting off trade/money) or offering financial aid to a preferred side.
- Diplomatic Intervention: Mediation, negotiation, peace talks, or passing resolutions through bodies like the UN.
- Humanitarian Intervention: Involvement specifically to protect civilians or deliver aid, often justified on moral grounds.
Quick Review: The goal of intervention is always to shift the balance of power or enforce international norms. Intervention is rarely neutral.
2. Case Study 1: The Spanish Civil War (1936–1939)
The Spanish Civil War is a classic example of an intrastate conflict that became a testing ground for ideological military intervention in the run-up to the Second World War.
2.1 Causes of the Conflict
The conflict was rooted in deep internal divisions in Spain:
(Prerequisite concept check: Spain was undergoing massive social and political instability following the collapse of the monarchy and the establishment of the Second Republic in 1931.)
- Political Polarization: A struggle between the left-wing, democratic Republican government (supported by communists, socialists, and anarchists) and the right-wing Nationalists (supported by the Church, military, and monarchists).
- The Catalyst: In July 1936, Nationalist generals (led later by Francisco Franco) launched a military coup (takeover) against the Republican government, initiating the full civil war.
2.2 Reasons for International Intervention (Ideology and Geopolitics)
This conflict attracted intervention primarily because it was seen through the lens of the rising ideological struggle between Fascism/Nazism and Communism/Democracy.
A. Intervention Supporting the Nationalists (The Right)
- Who: Fascist Italy (Mussolini) and Nazi Germany (Hitler).
- Why: To support fellow right-wing anti-communist forces, test new military equipment (like the German Luftwaffe), and weaken the surrounding democratic powers (France and UK).
- How: Massive military aid, including aircraft, tanks, and troops (e.g., Germany's Condor Legion). This was crucial to Nationalist victory.
B. Intervention Supporting the Republicans (The Left)
- Who: The Soviet Union (Stalin) and the International Brigades (volunteer fighters from around the world).
- Why: Stalin aimed to support the Communist elements within the Republican side and combat rising Fascism. The volunteers were ideologically motivated.
- How: The USSR provided weapons, tanks, and military advisors, but often demanded Spanish gold reserves in return. The aid was less consistent than that provided to Franco.
Did you know? The bombing of Guernica by the German Condor Legion was one of the first major attacks targeting a civilian population center, showing the brutality of modern war tactics being tested in Spain.
2.3 Non-Intervention and its Consequences
Crucially, major democracies like Britain and France adopted a policy of Non-Intervention.
- Why Non-Intervention? They feared the war escalating into a broader European conflict, and British conservatives preferred Franco to a communist-influenced Republic.
- Consequence: This policy effectively hurt the legitimate Republican government (who couldn't buy arms easily) while Germany and Italy openly violated the agreement in favor of Franco. The democratic intervention was weak, contributing heavily to the Republican defeat.
Key Takeaway for Spain: Intervention by totalitarian states (Germany and Italy) was decisive, while the inaction of democracies (UK and France) sealed the fate of the Republic. The war was a dress rehearsal for WWII.
3. Case Study 2: The Falklands/Malvinas War (1982)
This case study focuses on an interstate conflict over sovereignty and a swift, decisive military intervention by the United Kingdom (UK).
3.1 Background and Causes of Conflict
The Falkland Islands (known as the Islas Malvinas in Argentina) are small, remote islands in the South Atlantic, claimed by both Argentina and the UK since the 19th century.
- The Dispute: The core cause was the unresolved issue of sovereignty (who legally owns the islands).
- Argentine Motivation: Argentina, under a military junta (led by General Galtieri), was facing massive economic problems and internal opposition. They calculated that seizing the islands would rally national support and that the UK (being geographically distant) would not fight back.
- The Catalyst: On April 2, 1982, Argentine forces invaded and occupied the islands.
3.2 Dynamics of Intervention: UK Response and the UN
The British Prime Minister, Margaret Thatcher, immediately declared the invasion unacceptable, framing the conflict as a defense of self-determination and a response to aggression.
A. The Diplomatic Intervention (UN)
- UN Resolution 502: The UN Security Council immediately passed Resolution 502, demanding an immediate withdrawal of all Argentine forces and calling on both countries to seek a diplomatic solution.
- US Role: The US (under Reagan) attempted mediation but ultimately sided firmly with its NATO ally, the UK, providing vital intelligence and logistical support (a non-military but crucial intervention).
B. The Military Intervention (UK Task Force)
- The UK mounted a large-scale, 8,000-mile military operation known as the Task Force. This was a costly, difficult, and highly risky military intervention to retake sovereign territory.
- Method: Sea and air power dominated the conflict. The war lasted only 74 days, resulting in a decisive British victory and the surrender of Argentine forces on June 14, 1982.
3.3 Consequences of the Intervention
- In Argentina: The humiliating defeat led directly to the collapse of the military junta and the return to democratic rule in 1983. However, Argentina still maintains its claim over the islands (Malvinas perspective).
- In the UK: The victory boosted national pride and significantly solidified the political position of Margaret Thatcher, demonstrating Britain's willingness and capability to project power globally.
- International Norms: The intervention affirmed the principle that military aggression (invasion) is not an acceptable means of resolving territorial disputes, and that decisive military response is possible if national interests are severely threatened.
Common Mistake to Avoid: Do not describe the Falklands War purely as 'colonialism.' While the origins are colonial, the intervention in 1982 was framed by the UK as a defense of the islanders' right to self-determination (their choice to remain British).
Key Takeaway for the Falklands War: The intervention was swift, military, and focused on reversing a territorial grab. It had immediate, profound political consequences for the defeated aggressor (Argentina).
4. Synthesis and Evaluation: Comparing Interventions (HL Focus)
For HL students, it is essential to compare and contrast the nature, reasons, and effectiveness of intervention across different conflicts.
4.1 Differences in Intervention
The type of conflict dictates the nature of intervention:
- Type of Conflict: Spain was an ideological Civil War (intrastate), making intervention complicated and secretive. The Falklands was a clear Interstate War over territory, making the UK response a defense of sovereignty.
- Interveners: Spanish intervention was by rival great powers (Germany/USSR) pursuing ideological goals. Falklands intervention was primarily by the aggrieved state (UK), supported diplomatically by allies and the UN.
- Legality: UK intervention in 1982 was arguably more justifiable under international law (responding to aggression sanctioned by UN Resolution 502). The German/Italian intervention in Spain was technically illegal under the Non-Intervention Agreement.
4.2 Evaluating Effectiveness
How do we judge if an intervention was "successful"?
- In Spain: Intervention achieved the goals of the Fascist powers (Franco won; testing equipment proved successful). It failed the goal of the democratic powers (preventing fascism).
- In the Falklands: Intervention was highly effective for the UK, achieving 100% of its military and political goals (retaking the islands and supporting Thatcher's government).
Memory Aid (SPANISH vs. FALKLANDS):
- S – Secretive aid (Germany/USSR).
- P – Proxy ideological fight.
Versus:
- F – Fast and decisive military response.
- A – Aggression directly confronted.
Quick Review: Essential Concepts for Source Analysis (Paper 1)
When analyzing sources on conflict and intervention, always focus on:
- Justification: How does the source justify the intervention? (e.g., self-defense, spreading ideology, protecting civilians, upholding treaties).
- Value and Limitation: If the source is a speech by Thatcher, its value is showing the UK perspective and rationale. Its limitation is that it may exaggerate military capability or ignore Argentine civilian perspectives.
- Perspective: Whose view of the conflict are you seeing? Is it from the intervener, the victim state, or a neutral international body?
Keep practicing those historical skills, and remember—every conflict has multiple perspectives, and intervention is always a choice made for complex reasons! You've got this!