The Arms Embargo on Spain, 1936: How American “Neutrality” Helped Franco

The arms embargo on Spain became one of the most disputed decisions of Franklin Roosevelt. Formally the US stayed out of the civil war of 1936–1939. In practice the ban deprived the legitimate government of the republic of the chance to buy weapons, while it cost the rebels almost nothing. I know this story from my other articles: the word “neutrality” in American politics almost always means “help for the one we have chosen”.

Let’s work out how it worked, and why “non-intervention” turned out to be intervention.

What happened in 1936

In July 1936 General Franco raised a mutiny against the elected government of Spain. The Neutrality Act did not extend to civil wars. Nevertheless, in August Roosevelt declared a “moral embargo” on arms deliveries.

Then Congress made the ban law. On 8 January 1937 it passed a joint resolution almost unanimously: one man voted against. Thus a voluntary measure became a statute.

The arms embargo on Spain: who it helped

The republic was the legitimate government and had the right to buy weapons. However, the American market closed to it. Franco, meanwhile, received help from Germany, including the Condor Legion, and from Italy. The Soviet Union supplied arms to the Republicans.

Other Western democracies acted the same way. Britain and France pursued a policy of “non-intervention”. As a result the republic was left alone against stronger opponents.

How American business worked for Franco

The law banned the sale of weapons, but not oil and not vehicles. So the Texaco company under Torkild Rieber supplied the Francoists with fuel on credit. Moreover, Ford, General Motors and Studebaker sold them thousands of trucks.

The authorities knew about these deals. Nevertheless nobody suffered serious punishment. Thus “neutrality” turned out to be selective: for some it meant closed doors, for others open credit.

Americans in Spain

About 2,800 Americans went to fight for the republic as volunteers. They served in the Abraham Lincoln Brigade. The government considered the trip a violation and refused to protect the volunteers’ passports.

Curiously, Roosevelt himself after the war, according to contemporaries, called the embargo a mistake. By then it was impossible to put right.

The result: the republic falls

The republic fell in April 1939, and the US recognised Franco’s regime. Franco ruled until 1975, and in 1953 the US concluded an agreement with him on military bases. So “neutrality” turned into a long alliance with a dictator. About similar logic on another continent I wrote in my article on the murder of Sandino, where Washington also backed “its” general.

Note: every time the decision was presented as concern for peace. And it was Washington that chose the side all the same.

The 1937 law: how neutrality was made final

Curiously, the Neutrality Act was formally extended to civil wars as early as May 1937. Therefore the republic lost its last loophole. Moreover, Torkild Rieber’s Texaco supplied oil to the Francoists, and Rieber resigned only in 1940 because of a scandal over his ties with the Nazis. Meanwhile nobody questioned the very logic of “neutrality”.

Of the roughly 2,800 American volunteers, about 750 died. Thus ordinary people paid with their lives for a policy that Washington called “non-intervention”. The general background of the conflict is in the reference article on the Spanish Civil War.

Who won from the arms embargo on Spain

To sum up, the arms embargo on Spain benefited the one who did not need American weapons. For example, Franco received aircraft and tanks from Berlin and Rome, so the American ban hardly hindered him. The republic, which had to buy arms on the market, lost time and people. Moreover, the closed American border showed the fascist powers that democracies would not interfere. Therefore Hitler and Mussolini began to behave more boldly.

Thus “neutrality” proved convenient for American companies, for Berlin and for Rome. No wonder Roosevelt himself later called the embargo a mistake. But it could not be put right, just as thousands of dead cannot be brought back.

Nothing has changed: weapons as leverage

Weapons and aid still serve politics rather than a “neutral measure”. The recipients and pretexts change, but the principle is the same.

Ukraine, March 2025. The Trump administration paused military aid and intelligence sharing with Ukraine. Deliveries resumed after talks in Jeddah on 11 March.

Israel, May 2024. The Biden administration held up a shipment of large bombs to Israel. Later deliveries continued.

Syria, May 2025. Trump announced the lifting of sanctions on Syria. The decision became part of a diplomatic deal.

Argentina, October 2025. Washington also promised Milei a swap of twenty billion dollars, and Trump bluntly added: if Milei lost the elections, “we are walking”. Money and weapons are tied to politics directly.

The arms embargo on Spain showed that “neutrality” also picks a side. The ban hit the republic, but not those who backed Franco. The US used similar methods in Central America, as the article on the invasion of Honduras tells, and in Cuba: see the Platt Amendment.