A photograph by Gerda Taro and a title inspired by a poem by W. H. Auden are the letter of introduction of Tomorrow Maybe the Future. Writers and outsiders in the Spanish Civil War (Taurus), a work by the British Sarah Watling in which she reviews the experiences in the war of European and American writers and journalists such as Taro herself, Marha Gellhorn, Josephine Herbst, Jessica Mitford or Salaria Kea.
What led them to fight fascism with their typewriters and cameras? Each case is different, but in all of them there was a similar ideal of solidarity that did not understand borders and they were all overwhelmed by the idea that the end of the war was nothing more than a point and followed on that scale of horrors. They looked death in the face, left testimony of that encounter and became empowered.
That generation of rebels made the republican cause their cause and showed the world the best and the worst of humanity. “Tomorrow, maybe the future. But today the struggle,” Auden wrote; and that fight was not only against fascism, but against a world dominated by men and, sometimes, also against themselves.
Intellectual creation and political commitment went hand in hand during the Civil War. Was it then that the concept of “taking sides” crystallized on a global scale?
I would say yes. I believe that one of the reasons why the Civil War became such a powerful cause for international writers was precisely because it connected with a debate that was already in force in the 1930s, about what the purpose of the arts was. and what were the responsibilities of the artists. One of the reasons I wrote this book was because I discovered a pamphlet by the British writer and journalist Nancy Cunard that urged taking sides during the Spanish Civil War.
Cunard exhorted writers not to remain in their ivory tower, in reference to the controversy over what position the writer should adopt and whether it was possible to separate oneself from the conflicts of the times in which one lives. He told them that at that historical moment it was impossible not to commit, which made me wonder if there are periods in which it is no longer possible to be neutral, that is, in which as an individual we have the obligation to take sides.
For a long time, the chronicles of Martha Gellhorn or the photographs of Gerda Taro were relegated, while the works of her colleagues Hemingway and Capa were praised. Are we finally beginning to rediscover these women?
I hope so. For example, the discovery of the Mexican suitcase made it possible to attribute many images that seemed to be by Capa to their true author, Gerda Taro. However, these male figures have cast a long shadow, not only on the lives of these women, but also on her work and on what is remembered about the Civil War. Once we have a clearer picture of the number of people who were affected by this conflict, we will better understand how unifying this cause was and the extent to which it mobilized the international intellectual community.
Do you think there is a specifically feminine perspective, in the sense of individualizing and humanizing the victims more, compared to the chronicles written by their male colleagues?
I think that none of them would have liked the idea that their work was more “human”, although, probably, that was the view their editors expected. In terms of access to information, it was much more difficult for a female journalist to be in the line of fire than for a male journalist. Women like Virginia Cowles and Martha Gellhorn truly wanted to keep a record of the suffering of civilians during the war and not have that history erased, regardless of who won. With this book I wanted to show that you can write the history of a relevant historical event, capable of covering the political issues of the time and the way of thinking of the moment, without excluding women. Because they were writing about these topics the same as men.
Among the journalists who covered the war, such as Josephine Herbst or Martha Gellhorn, did camaraderie or professional competence prevail more to send the best report?
Well, the two you mentioned hated each other's guts, but, beyond that, the concept of solidarity was tremendously powerful for both of them, and, throughout their lives, they often found themselves in the difficult position of calling others companions. men who did not consider them as their equals. For me it has been very significant to be able to use Gerda Taro's photograph of the militiawoman on the cover of the book, because she embodies the idea of women as warriors. That was something new and, at the same time, very attractive; on Taro's part, it was a professional decision of great intelligence and vividness. Apart from that, seeing women participating in these new functions, training in these new roles, was important, because these correspondents were also trying to make their way in a world dominated by men.
Not all, but some women who bore witness to the Civil War were members of the Communist Party. How did they deal with events such as the May 1937 Events?
Each one perceived it in their own way. Josephine Herbst, for example, had participated in radical leftist movements in the United States – although I do not believe she was a member of the Communist Party – and, when she arrived in Spain, she did so with a very clear image of the possibilities of revolution. She expected to see confirmation of her ideas here, but, on the ground, she encountered another reality, starting with how difficult it was to obtain reliable information about what was happening. This was very disorienting and caused her to suffer enormous disappointment, so much so that she had a hard time writing about what was happening in Spain. For her, the goal of her literature was to explain the world around her, and she didn't see any point in it.
Furthermore, none of the women I talk about in the book were in Spain at the beginning of the war, so they did not witness the initial violence in the republican zone, and it was difficult for them not to interpret the anticlerical stories as propaganda. or extrajudicial killings. Above all, I have been interested in exploring the meaning that the war had for each person and the meaning that each individual attributed to it based on their personal background.
Before I was talking about the ivory tower. Virginia Woolf, for example, was reproached for not coming out of it with greater determination, even though her conflict touched her very closely with the death of her nephew Julian. Did that tragedy lead you to become more involved in the Spanish war?
No, I think not. Rather, the death of her nephew made him question why she had lost the debate she had with him before the war. Part of her grieving was understanding why she failed to convince him not to go to Spain, and what she did in his next book was to theoretically continue that dialogue with Julian. She was a convinced pacifist and she thought that violence never achieved anything. However, she failed to persuade him, nor could she stay out of the conflict. For Virginia, thinking and writing could be an active and tangible force, and she was sure that she would help more as a writer than as a volunteer in Spain.
In Three Guineas, Woolf wrote that war was “a habit of men, not women.” In addition to fighting fascism, was there a clear denunciation of patriarchy in these authors?
Let's see, that Virginia Woolf idea was her idea, in part, as a result of her relationship with Julian Bell. Furthermore, during World War I, Virginia lived in a fundamentally pacifist home; Then her nephew became obsessed with war, and that only reinforced in her the idea that the war instinct is eminently masculine. But many war correspondents showed that women could be just as “warlike.” What Virginia Woolf did believe was that domestic tyranny was the root of every other type of tyranny.
The Mitford sisters well embody the dichotomy that occurred in the 1930s between fascism, with Diana and Unity, on the one hand, and communism, with Jessica, who was barely nineteen years old when she arrived in Spain. In her case, was it more of a youthful adventure, an act of love, or was she truly concerned by a sincere political commitment?
The press painted it as an adventure and an act of love, but that doesn't do justice to his real motivation. If I decided to follow the lives of these women, it was because I understood that politics concerns personal life, not just public life. For Jessica Mitford, going to Spain was a kind of rite of entry into adulthood. She was starting her relationship with the love of her life and, in addition, she was introduced to real politics, with her communist ideals. It was the first time she acted in that direction. Anyway, there are so many parallels between first love and first political inclination...
Was there any difference between the American and British journalists who covered the conflict?
Interesting question. He would say that the position against restrictions on the press was more intense in the United States, because the purpose of American journalists was to convince their public that it was worth paying attention to what was happening in Spain.
Martha Gellhorn spoke in an interview about the courage and dignity of the people. From a sociological perspective, what caught the attention of foreign journalists the most about the character of the Spanish people?
There is a different answer for each of them. Martha Gellhorn, for example, never forgot the image of women in Madrid queuing to get food; during the bombings, they did not leave the line, and that seemed as heroic to her as a man shooting at the front. In turn, Josephine Herbst spoke of the pride of the Spanish, who did not want to be perceived as needing foreign help. Foreigners arrived in Spain feeling like they were saviors, but, deep down, the burden of the fight was carried by those who were already in the country.
The victory of totalitarianism broke everyone's hearts. What feeling did you have in 1939? Did they think they hadn't done enough?
It was an experience of profound disappointment, which haunted them until the last moment. Most were convinced that Spain offered the opportunity to avoid an even worse war. The defeat of the Republic only confirmed to them that their generation was going to be dragged into a longer and cruel struggle. And they would feel some guilt, above all, because they must have felt that they had gained a lot personally, but not collectively. As time went by, they consoled themselves with the idea that, even if they couldn't do much more, they could at least offer an account of what had really been experienced in the war, because in Franco's Spain it was not possible to offer an account. perspective that faithful.
