Onlytruth:

Just letting you know that your people lost too when they balkanized Nigeria. I know your leaders were too stu'pid not to see the future, so, butt off Biafran issues. If your people were not too evil minded and wicked, you would have continued dialogue like Achuzia pointed out. The war was YOUR fault and you are reaping it now.

As usual, you are doing everything except address the issue I raised. ndo o.

ndu_chucks:

My point that your leaders should have had enough intelligence or direct meetings with leaders of Western Nigeria before declaring independence, to ascertain that they will not be proceeding on a suicide mission, remains quite valid.

A joint declaration of independence would have worked like a charm. I maintain that this bad assumption by your leaders shows the lack of preparedness and gross incompetence that led you to a senseless war.

And what makes you think that their assumption wasn't based on intelligence?  And what is your definition of enough intelligence? You really think that the likes of Ojukwu, Ibiam, Kogbara, Achuzia, Hillary Njoku, Effiong, Okpara, Odenigwe, Nwokedi, Giadom etc all sat down and assumed something without any sort of intelligence backing?

Like I said before, it is easy to sit with a bottle of beer in hand during after event to be the wisest man. I gave you an example of the U.S and Iraq, you really think that they went into Iraq based on assumption that failed to materials because you think that they don't have intelligence to support their assumption?  Every single war plan is based on assumption propelled by guessing, shere luck and intelligence available.  When it works, you are the hero, when it fail, you are the zero. That is life.

Eziachi,

Thank you for the education; I'm learning a lot from you.

ndu_chucks:

Eziachi, first let me say that I believe that you were a soldier that fought with courage and you sacrifised for your cause. That is very admirable.

Many war plans as you mentioned are based on assumptions and uncertain scenarios.  You stated that a critical assumption was made by your leaders that Western Nigeria would declare independence and the fact that it didn't happen was one of the main reasons why biafra lost.  Your words:
My point that your leaders should have had enough intelligence or direct meetings with leaders of Western Nigeria before declaring independence, to ascertain that they will not be proceeding on a suicide mission, remains quite valid.

A joint declaration of independence would have worked like a charm. I maintain that this bad assumption by your leaders shows the lack of preparedness and gross incompetence that led you to a senseless war.

ndu_chucks,

You make a fundamental error to think that the human ability to plan is absolute.

Extending your logic to the Nigerian side, one can conclude that the Nigerian side failed woefully in their own plans. How? Well, they fought to keep Nigeria as one country and assumed that being one country would be "better", however "better" was defined, than being without Biafra. Note that the other assumption (that Nigeria would be worse with Biafra) makes no sense.

Well, how is Nigeria faring today? Between 1970 and 2010, Nigeria's determined march to failure has been nothing but sure.

Does it then mean that this almost-failed state of Nigeria, a country that at least 200,000 Nigerian (non-Biafran) soldiers died for, is evidence that the planners of the Nigerian military campaign against Biafra were also failures? Were they trying to secure victory, only to subsequently get failure?

ndu_chucks:

As usual, you are doing everything except address the issue I raised. ndo o.

Anyway you are here on your usual mission of derailing threads. Fact remains that Biafra was not defeated. A very reliable source (Achuzia) just said it ON RECORD. Biafra simply abandoned the war. To me that is the ONLY new information. That is really refreshing. You can hang if you can't deal with it.

RichyBlacK:

ndu_chucks,

You make a fundamental error to think that the human ability to plan is absolute.

I do not believe that human ability to plan is absolute, that would be foolish. If the simultaneous declaration of independence by Western Nigeria was a critical factor as Eziachi stated, then the said leaders made a grave mistake to say the least, for not ensuring that their assumption was correct before making their own declaration. That's all I'm saying, nothing more, nothing less. I maintain that position

ndu_chucks:

I do not believe that human ability to plan is absolute, that would be foolish.  If the simultaneous declaration of independence by Western Nigeria was a critical factor as Eziachi stated, then the said leaders made a grave mistake to say the least, for not ensuring that their assumption was correct before making their own declaration. That's all I'm saying, nothing more, nothing less.  I maintain that position

Eziachi asked you a question. Answer it or go away: What makes you think that the Eastern region had no reliable intelligence before declaring Biafra?

How reliable should an intelligence be before being actionable?

RichyBlacK:

ndu_chucks,

You make a fundamental error to think that the human ability to plan is absolute.

Extending your logic to the Nigerian side, one can conclude that the Nigerian side failed woefully in their own plans. How? Well, they fought to keep Nigeria as one country and assumed that being one country would be "better", however "better" was defined, than being without Biafra. Note that the other assumption (that Nigeria would be worse with Biafra) makes no sense.

Well, how is Nigeria faring today? Between 1970 and 2010, Nigeria's determined march to failure has been nothing but sure.

Does it then mean that this almost-failed state of Nigeria, a country that at least 200,000 Nigerian (non-Biafran) soldiers died for, is evidence that the planners of the Nigerian military campaign against Biafra were also failures? Were they trying to secure victory, only to subsequently get failure?

You can not assume that the Nigerian leaders wanted to keep biafra within Nigeria because they thought that Nigeria would be better with Biafra in it. The Nigerian side fought to keep Nigeria one, not because they had good plans for Nigeria, but because no wants to be left. Lets not forget that Murtala Mohammed intended on taking The North out of Nigeria, only a year before the war, when planning the revenge coup. Also, Gowon briefly entertained this idea of Northern secession when Ogundipe sent him to negotiate with Mohammed at Ikeja the British High Commisioner pointed it out to them that their people would suffer if they continued with that objective.

These guys were all young men and were just itching for a fight. They had no plans for Nigeria; they just wanted to rule. Afterall, Gowon did nothing to protect Igbo people when they were being killed in the pogroms, yet he fought to keep them in the country.

ndu_chucks:

I do not believe that human ability to plan is absolute, that would be foolish.  If the simultaneous declaration of independence by Western Nigeria was a critical factor as Eziachi stated, then the said leaders made a grave mistake to say the least, for not ensuring that their assumption was correct before making their own declaration. That's all I'm saying, nothing more, nothing less.  I maintain that position

It is your right and entitlement to stick to whatever you chose to believe but at least, your original language of foolish, incompetence and unprepared had lessoned a bit. Hindsight is a wonderful thing to have but unfortunately no human being has the privilege of hindsight.

I am sure that if reverse is the case today, many of the players on both sides may have taken a different direction, especially among the so called southerners. They were sold a dummy and they bought it and now we are all victims of it from north-south.
Gideon Orkar/Ogboru’s led coup testifies to that my notion

Katsumoto:

You can not assume that the Nigerian leaders wanted to keep biafra within Nigeria because they thought that Nigeria would be better with Biafra in it. The Nigerian side fought to keep Nigeria one, not because they had good plans for Nigeria, but because no wants to be left. Lets not forget that Murtala Mohammed intended on taking The North out of Nigeria, only a year before the war, when planning the revenge coup. Also, Gowon briefly entertained this idea of Northern secession when Ogundipe sent him to negotiate with Mohammed at Ikeja the British High Commisioner pointed it out to them that there people would suffer if they continued with that objective.

These guys were all young men and were just itching for a fight. They had no plans for Nigeria; they just wanted to rule. Afterall, Gowon did nothing to protect Igbo people when they were being killed in the pogroms, yet he fought to keep them in the country.

Very good and valid point. The exact point by British was: If you ever allow the Eastern region to go, you are finish. Whatever those word means is open to interpretations.

I believe that most Nigerians fought against Biafra without knowing that they are fighting for British interest, thinking that they are genuinely doing the right patriotic thing.

ndu_chucks:

I do not believe that human ability to plan is absolute, that would be foolish.  If the simultaneous declaration of independence by Western Nigeria was a critical factor as Eziachi stated, then the said leaders made a grave mistake to say the least, for not ensuring that their assumption was correct before making their own declaration. That's all I'm saying, nothing more, nothing less.  I maintain that position

The Biafran side made several assumptions:

1. That the role of foreign powers will be limited; not the extensive role Britain, Russia, Egypt, etc. played.
2. That Western Nigeria would either declare Odua Republic or refuse to cooperate with Northern Nigeria.
3. That Cameroon's role will be neutral.
4. That there may be no war if Gowon was ready to revisit the issues discussed at Aburi
etc.

On what basis do you put so much weight on Point 2?

So many of their assumptions were wrong, a common reality in all wars, yet you seem to be fixated on just one assumption. Why?

Since you acknowledge that man's ability to plan is limited, why not just say they made mistakes, as is common in all wars.

I really don't understand your picking only one failed assumption and labeling it as the "critical factor".

I am surprised that some of you guys are taking ndu_chuks serious, someone that did not know that Nzeogwu was not from the Eastern region until a few weeks ago should ordinarily come across as a complete ignorant poster delving into issues he does not understand at all.

My dear friend Ndu_Chuks is I am sure using the eyes he sees the world in 2010 as against what was obtained in the 60s. Information for instance is very limited in those days compared to now, we are abashed with it.

I still remember arriving in England towards the end of 1970 with the International Red Cross and many people I met Britain did not know anything about the war prosecuted by their own government with such a venom aganist my people, even though it was all over British papers towards the end, especially the Guardian and Telegraph.

Afam:

I am surprised that some of you guys are taking ndu_chuks serious, someone that did not know that Nzeogwu was not from the Eastern region until a few weeks ago should ordinarily come across as a complete ignorant poster delving into issues he does not understand at all.

Anyone can be wrong on facts at times; that you shouldn't remove from his ability to comment on posts or topics. I disagree with him from time to time, just like I disagree with others, but I think he provides a balance to the politics section.

Katsumoto:

Anyone can be wrong on facts at times; that you shouldn't remove from his ability to comment on posts or topics. I disagree with him from time to time, just like I disagree with others, but I think he provides a balance to the politics section.

I disagree, facts don't change. Thinking that one is sure of something is not the same thing as being sure of that thing.

Considering the way he uses hate filled words against anything related to Igbo or Biafra one would have expected that at least basic facts should not be a luxury for him.

This is like someone talking all the time about Awolowo telling us that he was from the Northern region. Would you in all sincerity take that person serious? Remember that this guy tried to twist and justify the lie by claiming that the Mid West was deemed to be Eastern region at that time when he was confronted with the ridiculous statement.

There is a world of difference between a mistake and a lie based on complete ignorance.

RichyBlacK:

The Biafran side made several assumptions:

1. That the role of foreign powers will be limited; not the extensive role Britain, Russia, Egypt, etc. played.
2. That Western Nigeria would either declare Odua Republic or refuse to cooperate with Northern Nigeria.
3. That Cameroon's role will be neutral.
4. That there may be no war if Gowon was ready to revisit the issues discussed at Aburi
etc.

On what basis do you put so much weight on Point 2?

So many of their assumptions were wrong, a common reality in all wars, yet you seem to be fixated on just one assumption. Why?

Since you acknowledge that man's ability to plan is limited, why not just say they made mistakes, as is common in all wars.

I really don't understand your picking only one failed assumption and labeling it as the "critical factor".

Whilst there were a few wrong assumptions, some were more costly than others. You have raised some of the other wrong assumptions but I think that one of the most crucial was obtaining some kind of alliance with the West. If that alliance was obtained, it would have made other wrong assumptions irrelevant. For instance, the neutrality of Cameroon would not have made a lot of difference. Also foreign countries would have been careful with taking sides. Most countries would have waited to see how the situation would pan out before declaring for any side. With the West and East aligned, the ports in the South would have been secured, making it difficult for the North to receive weapons.

Of course, we do not know whether Britain would have decided to align with the North and declare war on the South in the process. Britain might not have chosen this path knowing fully well that France might then support the South. Like many posters have mentioned already, it is difficult to ascertain completely what would happen in war. Alliances are forged and broken.

Just my opinion

RichyBlacK:

The Biafran side made several assumptions:

1. That the role of foreign powers will be limited; not the extensive role Britain, Russia, Egypt, etc. played.
2. That Western Nigeria would either declare Odua Republic or refuse to cooperate with Northern Nigeria.
3. That Cameroon's role will be neutral.
4. That there may be no war if Gowon was ready to revisit the issues discussed at Aburi
etc.

On what basis do you put so much weight on Point 2?

So many of their assumptions were wrong, a common reality in all wars, yet you seem to be fixated on just one assumption. Why?

Since you acknowledge that man's ability to plan is limited, why not just say they made mistakes, as is common in all wars.

I really don't understand your picking only one failed assumption and labeling it as the "critical factor".

sorry, but what you really seem to be saying is that the biafrans were lousy strategists

oyb:

sorry, but what you really seem to be saying is that the biafrans were lousy strategists

oyb, the point you made is spot on, in my opinion as well. Many of the assumptions made by biafran leaders were critical success factors and competent leadership requires that before taking the steps leading to war, no effort should be spared towards ensuring that the assumptions do not turn out wrong, as they indeed turned out.

I'm of the humble opinion that leaders who made these kinds of strategic blunder in addition to countless of other bad decisions, had no business leading. They did a great disservice to millions of dead women and children, to say the least.

ndu_chucks:

oyb, the point you made is spot on, in my opinion as well. Many of the assumptions made by biafran leaders were critical success factors and competent leadership requires that before taking the steps leading to war, no effort should be spared towards ensuring that the assumptions do not turn out wrong, as they indeed turned out.

I'm of the humble opinion that leaders who made these kinds of strategic blunder in addition to countless of other bad decisions, had no business leading. They did a great disservice to millions of dead women and children, to say the least.

A clear case of crying more than the bereaved. An overwhelming majority of Biafrans then and people people that were affected in the war respect and appreciate the contributions of the leaders. A fact that anyone that cannot live with cannot change.

Why one would be so engrossed in the affairs of a people to the extent that desperate lies are being told without shame while masking same as mistakes?

oyb:

sorry, but what you really seem to be saying is that the biafrans were lousy strategists

Wrong. The lousy and myopic strategists were the Nigerians. What strategy was put in place to prevent Nigeria, the country they fought for, from becoming a failed state?

The term strategy connotes long-term, as opposed to short-term planning. Beyond winning the war, what did the subsequent government that ruled for nine years do to strengthen the country they fought and died for? They won the war (short-term) but had no plans for the future of the country (long-term), hence the doldrums Nigeria finds herself in.

The one visible strategy was to ensure that no Igbo would rule Nigeria for a long time; 40 years on and that strategy is still playing out.

Other strategies include looting the treasury; mangling the constitution; rigging elections, assassinating political opponents, etc.

What strategy did the "victorious and triumphant" Nigerians put in place to make their beloved Nigeria, the country that must remain one under any circumstance, succeed as a nation?

^^^^

we are not talking about government here -

we are talking about a war

from the very beginning -

the coup plotters failed to anticipate the reaction of the northerners . for whatever reason, they assumed that the northerners would take the assassination of key figures in their polity stoically.

they assumed that they could secede bloodlessly from nigeria

they assumed they would get international support.

they probably like so many nairalanders - assumed that northerners were dumb gworo chewing eejits who were better suited to herding cattle than fighting wars

even the much talked about blockade - was the food and supplies that were getting through before going solely to women and children? are you going to tell me that the army was not also being fed by those supplies ?

there's been a lot about britain vs france. more poor assumptions. the last time there was any real rivalry between france and britain was the hundred years war. france and britain shared colonies, they didn't fight over them

if you want to play semantics ok - biafrans were lousy military strategists. does that sound better?

i doubt if they would have made a better job of running biafra, - its not as if the governors on ground have fantastic track records.

oyb:

^^^^

we are not talking about government here -

we are talking about a war

from the very beginning -

the coup plotters failed to anticipate the reaction of the northerners . for whatever reason, they assumed that the northerners would take the assassination of key figures in their polity stoically.

they assumed that they could secede bloodlessly from nigeria

they assumed they would get international support.

they probably like so many nairalanders - assumed that northerners were dumb gworo chewing eejits who were better suited to herding cattle than fighting wars

even the much talked about blockade - was the food and supplies that were getting through before going solely to women and children? are you going to tell me that the army was not also being fed by those supplies ?

there's been a lot about britain vs france. more poor assumptions. the last time there was any real rivalry between france and britain was the hundred years war. france and britain shared colonies, they didn't fight over them

if you want to play semantics ok - biafrans were lousy military strategists. does that sound better?

i doubt if they would have made a better job of running biafra, - its not as if the governors on ground have fantastic track records.

I think due to your bias, you got everything muddled up. The Igbo or Biafran nation did not send anybody to go and organise and execute a coup, I don’t see the connection you are making.
Irrespective of living in war situation, there was never a day Biafra has petrol crisis as they could refine the fuel but 40 years later, you are importing petrol from nation you sold the raw crude.
The governors, today is not a reflection of Biafra but a reflection of the Nigerian system and constitution that put them there. Therefore they are not accountable to us but their over lords in Abuja. If want to see what Biafra leadership would have looked at, attend any of Igbo town union congresses and see how election are conducted without rigging or bloodshed. How a town development funds are managed by our people without embezzlement despite doing it for free with salaries

stop dodging the subject

we are not talking about how democratic the ibos (nigeria's master tribe) are or how innovative they were during the war

world war II - the ingenuity of the germans - who pioneered rocket scince during the course of the war, among other things , and the brilliance of several of their generals could not counter hitler's stupi-d decisions -  eg invading russia


btw nostalgia means you look at the past in rose coloured glasses.

oyb:

^^^^

we are not talking about government here -

we are talking about a war

from the very beginning -

the coup plotters failed to anticipate the reaction of the northerners . for whatever reason, they assumed that the northerners would take the assassination of key figures in their polity stoically.

they assumed that they could secede bloodlessly from nigeria

Dude, why are you people always here to distort history? I see how you and other folks from Yorubaland keep making all these fake claims and mocking the Biafrans for what you could never dream of accomplishing even in a seventh life time. Carry on, but don't be surprised at the vitriol and hate that you attract to yourselves.

they assumed they would get international support.

they probably like so many nairalanders - assumed that northerners were dumb gworo chewing eejits who were better suited to herding cattle than fighting wars

even the much talked about blockade - was the food and supplies that were getting through before  going solely to women and children? are you going to tell me that the army was not also being fed by those supplies ?

there's been a lot about britain vs france. more poor assumptions. the last time there was any real rivalry between france and britain was the hundred years war. france and britain shared colonies, they didn't fight over them

if you want to play semantics ok - biafrans were lousy military strategists. does that sound better?

i doubt if they would have made a better job of running biafra, - its not as if the governors on ground have fantastic track records.

As has been exhaustively discussed on nairaland, it is criminal to block food supplies on the basis that it may be used by your enemies. That was a crime which led to many innocent deaths (women,children and the old), which is why a camel will pass through the eye of a needle before Igbos forgive or forget. Folks like you are also ensuring we never forgive or forget. So, keep up the good work.

As for the international support, well has anything changed in Nigeria? That country will turn into HELL and the north will still continue to enjoy that support. So, go and gnash your teeth quietly because the pain will be long. Today, people are running around calling for mass action or revolution. You will only find the biggest fools from Igboland in those marches, quote me on that.

oyb:

from the very beginning -

the coup plotters failed to anticipate the reaction of the northerners . for whatever reason, they assumed that the northerners would take the assassination of key figures in their polity stoically.

they assumed that they could secede bloodlessly from nigeria

they assumed they would get international support.

they probably like so many nairalanders - assumed that northerners were dumb gworo chewing eejits who were better suited to herding cattle than fighting wars

Why  are you guys hell bent on distorting history?

What made you say that the coup plotters were carrying out biafran agenda?, or that it was their plan to secede or every other allegation you are heaping on them.

It is a bit pardonable to label that coup 'a coup plotted by igbo people' but it isn't when you guys keep making it a coup plotted for igbo people.

Until  guys like you accept that the coup plotters were not carrying out igbo agenda and make attempts to address the injustices meted out on ndi igbo under that assumption, Nigeria will never work?

@ oyb and ndu_chucks

From your language, a child can easily discern that you're filled with hatred so I’ll urge folks to stop dialoguing with your emptiness.

Let me leave you with one sentence: Ndigbo/Biafrans MUST always have a higher standard of living than your people despite our marginalisation and deprivation, and this is a tip of the ice berg of who we are and how resolute and unyielding we can be.

So SUCK IT!  Morons.

When people claim that the coup was carried out to benefit the Igbos I sense irreversible brain damage and utter confusion.

Even those that fought against Biafra admitted that the Easterners were doing very well before independence and after independence in the military, business and civil service. What more can a group of young army officers do to assist a group of people that were already leading in different areas?

Personally, all that happened were based on envy and jealousy as is common with people who are lazy and would rather steal, maim or kill those they believe are better off than them.

After all some people became landlords in Rivers State simply because the likes of Saro Wiwa spearheaded the abandoned property project even though he was trained with Eastern region money (not crude oil money).

@Eziachi
I salute una for fighting for your belief and for your people.
The more these people who were involved in the war speak out, the more we are enlightened. To me, this is just another account of one of the players' (Achuzia) account. But more credible, I think Ejoor came out differently on his role and recollection and I would like to hear more from other players. It would be foolhardy to outright dismiss anyone's account since he/she was there, but one must also understand that everybody would like to rewrite history to favour them,

The reason Biafra was defeated was becos Ojukwu killed Victor Banjo his lieutenants. It was like the punishment of Jehovah God. pEACE BABY.

ifele:

The reason Biafra was defeated was becos Ojukwu killed Victor Banjo his lieutenants. It was like the punishment of Jehovah God. pEACE BABY.

dumb!
Even victor banjo's relations will laugh at such foolish comments.

ifele:

The reason Biafra was defeated was becos Ojukwu killed Victor Banjo his lieutenants. It was like the punishment of Jehovah God. pEACE BABY.

What a comment!!!! Do you have private audience with God?

safariman:

@Eziachi
I salute una for fighting for your belief and for your people. 
The more these people who were involved in the war speak out, the more we are enlightened.  To me, this is just another account of one of the players' (Achuzia) account.  But more credible,  I think Ejoor came out differently on his role and recollection and I would like to hear more from other players.  It would be foolhardy to outright dismiss anyone's account since he/she was there, but one must also understand that everybody would like to rewrite history to favour them,

Thank you, I agree with you entirely, every account of what happen is very important, it doesn't whether it tallies with mine or whether I disagree with the person. My people says that a small snake seen by one person alone, always turn out and becomes a big pyton later.

Like I said in one of my previous post, I honestly believe that the genesis of armed robbery in Nigeria lies with the civil war, because of the fact that Biafran stopped fighting and did not decommision as always with surrendering, many guys went home with their guns and due to only 20 naira in the pocket, many sold on their guns to Nigerians that has the cash. When Oyelusi and his gang were first to be executed at bar beach for robbery, many of us were in shock because robbery was a foreign language until then.

So many mistakes were made during the war on Biafra side as regards to strategy but as person who was physically involved, I can't blame those in charge because hindsight is not the privilege they had at the time and the entire Biafra nation understands that and that is why we are grateful to them, because they tried and did their best, though circumstances, made the difference in the outcome. Considering the fact that 95% of Biafra soldiers were bloody civilian before the war started.

But when you heared people like Oyb mouthing off as if they will make a difference themselves, it makes you wonder why they haven't changed Nigeria for almost 47 years they had all the time in the world. But as always arm-chair field marhsalls tent to know it all from the comfort of their home with a bottle of beer in one hand.