The Rif War, 1921–1926: Resistance, State-Building and Civilian Experience

Colonial claims and local power

The protectorate arrangements of 1912 assigned zones of Morocco to French and Spanish administration. A claim on a diplomatic map was not the same as control of the Rif. Northern communities resisted Spanish expansion, and the struggle widened into a war involving both colonial powers.¹²

In July 1921, forces led by Muhammad ibn Abd al-Karim al-Khattabi, commonly known as Abd el-Krim, defeated the Spanish army at Annual. For Spain the defeat became a political crisis; for the Rif it opened an opportunity to build a government. Describing it only as Spain’s “disaster” leaves out that second history.³

What did the Rif government do?

The government centred on Ajdir attempted to organise taxation, justice, roads and communications while sustaining resistance. Pol Dalmau’s research emphasises the constraints imposed by war: the institutions of the Rif Republic were a state-building project under pressure, not evidence that every part of the region operated like an established peacetime republic.³

Its leadership also sent appeals abroad. Petitions and correspondence show attempts to secure recognition through the League of Nations and sympathy among anti-colonial networks. These documents are evidence of diplomatic activity even where recognition failed. They also let the Rif’s representatives appear as political actors with arguments of their own.³

Escalation and civilian life

The war expanded into the French zone in 1925. Franco-Spanish cooperation brought overwhelming military pressure, and Abd el-Krim surrendered in May 1926. Operations continued into 1927, which is why histories use different end dates depending on whether they follow his government or the wider campaign.¹

Pascal Daudin’s humanitarian study brings attention to bombardment, civilian suffering and the political obstacles facing relief. Its archival references include correspondence in which colonial authorities disputed whether Riffian fighters should be treated as belligerents entitled to outside assistance. Decisions about the name of the conflict could therefore affect access to help.²

What the chemical-warfare evidence establishes

Spanish chemical attacks are documented in specialist scholarship, including records and testimony discussed by Daudin. The French record requires its own treatment. Francisco Javier Martínez’s 2025 study argues, from French and British archives and contemporary reporting, for French chloropicrin use in spring 1925 and documents shipments of additional chemical shells later that summer.¹²

That distinction matters: evidence of storage, a shipment, an order and an actual attack are related but different. Nor does proof of historical chemical warfare by itself quantify present-day disease or establish the cause of an individual illness. Those questions need separate medical and population evidence.

Reading the war after its end

A military history follows campaigns; an institutional history follows the government; a civilian history asks how people obtained food, safety and care. None alone exhausts the Rif War. Reading the regional guide beside the modern cultural revival also helps distinguish the events of the 1920s from their later meanings.