Posted by: Katsumoto

Why do you persist in debating those who are obviously more knowledgeable than you?

Until the arms embargo in 1967, France was the main backer of Israel. The US did not start backing Israel fully until the mid-70s. In fact during the Yom Kippur war with Syria and Egypt, Israel did not receive supplies from the US until it had gained a strategic advantage. Henry Kissinger famously said, 'let Israel bleed' when Golda Meir approached Nixon for aid. Meanwhile the Arabs were being supplied heavily by the USSR.   

Israel was not in a position to be a major backer of Biafra during the Nigerian civil war. Britain was not a backer of Israel then and as such, it couldn't have been going against an ally, if it backed Biafra. [/b]In foreign policy, there are no permanent friends. Despite the US being in a cold war with the US, did the US not support USSR against Britain, France, and Israel when they defeated Egypt in the Suez crisis?

I told [b]PhysicsMHD to leave the history of who supported who and the war behind. I would advise you to do the same.
All I said was that if Israel had supported Biafra militarily (to clarify that I also mean weapons and personnel -fighter pilots), the rest of Nigeria (the Capital Lagos for instance) would have seen real war.

Israel started receiving British, America and French military aircraft support from 1948.
During the 1948 war with Egypt, Israel flew the following aircrafts:

(American)Boeing B-17s, (British)Bristol Beaufighters, de Havilland Mosquitoes and (American)P-51D Mustangs.

Two American and two British, my favorites being  the American B-17s and the Mustangs.

Yes, France became a major aircraft supplier to Israel in the 1950s, but they embargoed Israel just before the 1967, 6-day war, which made Israel to turn to America for aircrafts, as well as significantly increasing its own aircraft production.

Israel could not have supported Biafra militarily, because yes Britain was supporting Nigeria, and Britain was an old Israeli ally.
Secondly, they could also run into the Soviets which could mean drawing the superpowers on opposing sides -
America (supporting Israel & Biafra), against and Nigerian/British/Soviet alliance. This partly explains why America stayed away from the war.

I will attach pictures of British and America aircrafts for Israel as far back as 1948

B-17E Flying Fortress.
1948 Isreali/Egyptian war veteran.

Onlytruth:

Posted by: Katsumoto
I told PhysicsMHD to leave the history of who supported who and the war behind. I would advise you to do the same.
All I said was that if Israel had supported Biafra militarily (to clarify that I also mean weapons and personnel -fighter pilots), the rest of Nigeria (the Capital Lagos for instance) would have seen real war.

Israel started receiving British, America and French military aircraft support from 1948.
During the 1948 war with Egypt, Israel flew the following aircrafts:

(American)Boeing B-17s, (British)Bristol Beaufighters, de Havilland Mosquitoes and (American)P-51D Mustangs.

Two American and two British, my favorites being  the American B-17s and the Mustangs.

Yes, France became a major aircraft supplier to Israel in the 1950s, but they embargoed Israel just before the 1967, 6-day war, which made Israel to turn to America for aircrafts, as well as significantly increasing its own aircraft production.

Israel could not have supported Biafra militarily, because yes Britain was supporting Nigeria, and Britain was an old Israeli ally.
Secondly, they could also run into the Soviets which could mean drawing the superpowers on opposing sides -
America (supporting Israel & Biafra), against and Nigerian/British/Soviet alliance. This partly explains why America stayed away from the war.

I will attach pictures of British and America aircrafts for Israel as far back as 1948

you bas.tard stop changing history mumu

mumu wishing death on his own family,.,. well i wish you the same

Before 1970, the Israeli airforce was already beginning to fly the F-4 Phantoms and downing Soviet MIG 21s in the
operation Rimon -20.

"On July 30, 1970, the tension peaked: An IAF ambush resulted in a large scale air brawl between IAF planes and MiGs flown by Soviet pilots — five MiGs were shot down, while the IAF suffered no losses. Fear of further escalation and superpower involvement brought the war to a conclusion. By its end of August 1970, the Israeli Air Force had claimed 111 aerial kills while admitting losing only four aircraft to Arab fighters."

Wikipedia (when convenient)  

Onlytruth:

Before 1970, the Israeli airforce was already beginning to fly the F-4 Phantoms and downing Soviet MIG 21s in the
operation Rimon -20.

"On July 30, 1970, the tension peaked: An IAF ambush resulted in a large scale air brawl between IAF planes and MiGs flown by Soviet pilots — five MiGs were shot down, while the IAF suffered no losses. Fear of further escalation and superpower involvement brought the war to a conclusion. By its end of August 1970, the Israeli Air Force had claimed 111 aerial kills while admitting losing only four aircraft to Arab fighters."

Wikipedia (when convenient)  

why are you laffing when you have wished death on your own family

i will advice you to take back that wish before it befalls on you

Posted by: alj harem

why are you laffing when you have wished death on your own family Undecided

i will advice you to take back that wish before it befalls on you

Goat why are following me around?
I don't have palm fronds.

You WILL GET WHATEVER YOU WISH ME TEN TIMES!
Ewu awusa.

Onlytruth:

Posted by: alj harem
Goat why are following me around?
I don't have palm fronds.

You WILL GET WHATEVER YOU WISH ME TEN TIMES!
Ewu awusa.

well i always wish you well in everything you do and also wish you can view all nigerians as equals not only igbo this igbo that

thanks for the wish

and you as well will get whatever you wish on me Ten times to the end of your generation

(you better pray that wish is a good one )

Posted by: alj harem

well i always wish you well in everything you do and also wish you can view all nigerians as equals not only igbo this igbo that

thanks for the wish

and  you as well will get whatever you wish on me Ten times to the end of your generation

(you better pray that wish is a good one

I say Amen to that! 

I never be the first to wish anyone ill. You will not wish me bad and live to tell the story. If you doubt me, take a look at Nigeria and tell me why the country has not known peace or REAL progress since 1970.

Face the topics and air your views. Let me air mine too, no matter how offensive they might seem to you.

I hate no one. I am only looking out for my group's interest like every other Nigerian groups.

I am enjoying my constitutional rights.

Onlytruth:

Posted by: alj harem
I say Amen to that! 

I never be the first to wish anyone ill. You will not wish me bad and live to tell the story. If you doubt me, take a look at Nigeria and tell me why the country has not known peace or REAL progress since 1970.

Face the topics and air your views. Let me air mine too, no matter how offensive they might seem to you.

I hate no one. I am only looking out for my group's my interest like every other Nigerian groups.

I am enjoying my constitutional rights.

onlytruth, we are brothers

we do not need to be insulting and wishing each other death etc

no matter what our differences is kanuri/igbo we are still brothers

if you have been following my post closely, you will see i do not insult igbos rather i say good things about them

i only tackle individuals whether igbo, yoruba or not because i now see that tribalism is a cancer

onlytruth, i love you as a brother that is why i keep following your post because, i see were you are coming from (you love your people etc) and i noticed that the path in which you are going is wrong (no that there is anything wrong defending your people) but you should be more open minded

brother i plead to you, do not love people just because they are igbo rather love them because of the way they have behave to your

Posted by: alj harem

onlytruth, we are brothers

we do not need to be insulting and wishing each other death etc

no matter what our differences is kanuri/igbo we are still brothers

if you have been following my post closely, you will see i do not insult igbos rather i say good things about them

i only tackle individuals whether igbo, yoruba or not because i now see that tribalism is a cancer Undecided

onlytruth, i love you as a brother that is why i keep following your post because, i see were you are coming from (you love your people etc) and i noticed that the path in which you are going is wrong (no that there is anything wrong defending your people) but you should be more open minded Smiley

brother i plead to you, do not love people just because they are igbo rather love them because of the way they have behave to your

You are new to nairaland. That is why you say that.
I don't hate anyone, I cannot afford to hate anyone. I am a Christian, and the top pastor in my church is Yoruba man whom I admire so much. Nothing can change that.
It is not even likely that Ndigbo hate anyone in Nigeria. That is why they live EVERYWHERE in Nigeria.
But let me show you a little example of hate.

Take the Enugu international airport for example.
Successive Nigerian leaders refused to upgrade it to international standard for 43 years. Even Yar adua who announced its upgrade refused to append signature on paper and sat on it until his death.

It took a Goodluck Jonathan presidency for Enugu International airport to receive presidential signature.
Meanwhile, in all those years, my people kept dying on the 7 -10 hour drive to Lagos and Abuja to board international flights.

Who do you think love who in this story?
The person who lives in all parts of Nigeria, or the person who sat on Enugu International airport upgrade for decades?

Search your conscience.

Onlytruth:

Posted by: alj harem
You are new to nairaland. That is why you say that.
I don't hate anyone, I cannot afford to hate anyone. I am a Christian, and the top pastor in my church is Yoruba man whom I admire so much. Nothing can change that.
It is not even likely that Ndigbo hate anyone in Nigeria. That is why they live EVERYWHERE in Nigeria.
But let me show you a little example of hate.

Take the Enugu international airport for example.
Successive Nigerian leaders refused to upgrade it to international standard for 43 years. Even Yar adua who announced its upgrade refused to append signature on paper and sat on it until his death.

It took a Goodluck Jonathan presidency for Enugu International airport to receive presidential signature.
Meanwhile, in all those years, my people kept dying on the 7 -10 hour drive to Lagos and Abuja to board international flights.

Who do you think love who in this story?
The person who lives in all parts of Nigeria, or the person who sat on Enugu International airport upgrade for decades?

Search your conscience.

onlytruth, i agree and see were you are coming from

but as i said earlier, it is not yoruba or hausa people but leaders

as you clearly said OBJ an Yaradua did nothing in enugu international airport but these people are leaders not the group

no one group hates igbos,.,. when last have you been to kaduna,, see how igbo yoruba anad northerners are mixing well

when last have you been to lagos see how igbos and yorubas are doing abegero together

but you can feel the love there

me and my igbo neigbour have never for once fought on anything

thanks for time

Dede1: This is another attempt on revision of history or outright distortion. There were announced recognition, silent recognition and diplomatic support for Biafra.

The purpose of my post was not to compile some list of supporters and opponents of Biafra but to contrast those who supported for malicious reasons with those who supported for more noble reasons  or for non-malicious reasons and to highlight that some countries viewed Nigeria and Biafra in exactly opposite terms from the assumption some have that there was some conspiracy against Biafa for being a promising African country. That should be pretty easy to grasp.

The countries that openly recognized Biafra were Tanzania, Zambia, Ivory Coast, Gabon and Haiti.

Ok. And? This contradicts nothing I wrote. I stated reasons for support. I’m not all that interested in compiling lists.

France or China never helped Biafra militarily or otherwise. Israeli government did not help as it has war to fight. However, the some individuals in Israel had tendered good words for Biafra in countries such Czechoslovakia and Romania.

I'm really stunned at this France claim and kind of wonder whether you even believe it yourself. It's true that France didn't formally (“announced recognition”) recognize Biafra, but to deny military support from France is just ridiculous.

Frederick Forsyth asserted in his biography of Ojukwu, Emeka,  that France didn’t supply any weapons to Biafra, however multiple sources state otherwise. Of course this is one of multiple unsupportable claims/distortions by Forsyth, so it should come as no surprise that it is coming from this same author.

Who believes France supplied Biafra with some weapons?

1. The writer Kurt Vonnegut, who went into Biafra during the war as a sympathizer and left Biafra as a Biafra supporter/sympathizer and spoke personally with Ojukwu and Effiong and also confirmed from Ojukwu that Biafra received tangible (not just diplomatic) support from Rhodesia and South Africa at some point. This can be seen in “Biafra: A People Betrayed,” a very moving piece Vonnegut published in 1979.
2. The journalist John de St. Jorre, who went into Biafra as a sympathizer and was an eyewitness to a great deal of the inner workings of Biafra.

Who claims France didn’t?

1. Frederick Forsyth, who made numerous other errors in his books on Biafra/Ojukwu.

Now let's approach this logically:

“At the outbreak of war, the French government, unlike the United States, did not take a formal stand on arms sales. It was only a year later (June 1968) that the foreign minister, Michel Debré, announced an arms embargo. In the meantime, several Panhard armoured cars, already in the pipeline to Nigeria when the war began, had been delivered, and supplies negotiated by private dealers in France had continued either with the explicit permission or the 'blind eye' connivance of the government. Most of these went to Biafra but the occasional planeload was also sold to the Nigerians. The French did, however, refuse Federal requests to buy jet fighters and heavy weapons. The African recognitions charged the emphasis but not the rationale of France's arms policy. From May 1968 until the end of the war, the French government took a direct hand in supplying weapons to Biafra, routing them through the Ivory Coast and Gabon. Until de Gaulle's pro-Biafran statement of September, the supply was an uncertain trickle [The student revolution in France in May 1968 and the subsequent election presumably deflected much of the French government's attention from Biafra and other foreign problems.] but after that it grew to massive proportions, reaching an estimated peak of 200 tons a week in the autumn of 1969. As a simple 'cover' the Ivory Coast and Gabon governments supplied the Biafrans from their own stocks which the French then replenished. On other occasions, weapons destined for French army units based in these two countries were sent to the Biafrans. This helped the French government to maintain the fiction that it was not aiding the Biafrans. Some consignments were paid for, others were gifts. But neither the amount nor the nature of the arms – few heavy weapons were supplied – was adequate to ensure that the Biafrans stood the remotest chance of winning the war. It almost seemed as if the French did not want Biafra to win the war. 'Semi-recognition' and half-hearted assistance hardly reflected total commitment. The truth was that France decided to play the game both ways, partly because of the unexpected solidarity and strength of Nigeria's allies and partly due to innate caution. There were other pressures deterring a complete alienation of the Nigerians. Francophone Africa, France's primary interest in the the continent, was deeply riven by the crisis. Niger and Cameroon, two of Nigeria's French-speaking neighbours were as warmly  pro-Federal as the Ivory Coast and Gabon were pro-Biafran. The General's Arab friends were, to a man, behind the Federal government. The French were beginning to find themselves out on a highly precarious limb, in the bizarre and not entirely congenial company of Portugal, South Africa, Rhodesia, Communist China and - oddest of all – Israel. Biafra's four African friends provided some comfort but as the war dragged on and the expected recognition landslide did not come, France's isolation increased. [De Gaulle's 9th September statement suggested that French recognition of Biafra was possible 'if Africa willed it', implying that more African recognitions would enable France itself to take the plunge.] In the later stages, Federal lobbies at home began to make themselves felt, greatly helped by a marked improvement in the quality of the staff in the Nigerian embassy in Paris. French military intervention in Chad on the side of the government against the Northern rebellion in May 1969 showed signs of being a long-drawn-out, messy affair and pointed up the dangers of  open-ended military commitments in Africa. So, having radiated all sorts of positive vibrations indicating an imminent recognition of Biafra, the French began to pull back and hedge their bets. They were greatly helped in this back-tracking operation by the Nigerians who, throughout this episode, had shown a remarkable sangfroid and refused to be rushed into a hasty or emotional reaction. They took none of the obvious reprisals: breaking off diplomatic relations, confiscating French property, harassing French nationals. The main reason for this was that the Nigerian External Affairs Ministry feared that such a reaction would push France over the brink to full recognition of Biafra. The Nigerians also had a healthy – and possibly exaggerated – respect for the French government's capacity for ruthlessness in pursuing its African policies. The memory of French paratroopers fluttering down over Libreville and swiftly crushing an attempted coup against President Bongo's predecessor in 1964 was never far from their minds. The Chad intervention – this time by the even tougher Foreign Legion – merely confirmed these fears. If France recognized, they argued, there was no knowing what an irascible de Gaulle might do; massive shipments of heavy armaments, jet planes, Legionaires and mercenaries, money and diplomatic support – nothing could be ruled out, everything would be possible. And Nigeria's allies – Britain and Russia – could not be counted on  to match such an escalation. French recognition would also, it was felt, finally break the diplomatic log-jam which the four African recognitions of Biafra had so far failed to do. Another factor was Nigeria's exports to the E.E.C. Countries which are considerable, the latter together representing a larger market than Britain;  France takes almost half of Nigeria's groundnut crop. Therefore, the Federal government limited the expression of its pent-up rage to formal notes of protest to the Quai d'Orsay, the occasional demonstration in Lagos and a lot of wishful thinking. But it worked. The Quai d'Orsay, with some relief since it was fundamentally pro-Federal in politics and sentiment, played the game. This stylish but essentially hypocritical arrangement had the added advantage of leaving a door open for the French if and when they decided to make their peace.“ -  John de St. Jorre, The Nigerian Civil War



Do you actually believe that Gabon and Ivory Coast were/are some kind of weapons manufacturing Meccas, with huge military caches stuffed into some mysterious black box somewhere? It was all French. Step back, drop the emotional sword and shield and think for a minute.  The French were opportunists, just like the Russians, and for a while their opportunism did translate to tangible support (though not nearly enough).

“A week before the summit, on 7th September, in the Hotel Napoléon, along Avenue de Friedland, a small and discreet hotel in the heart of Paris, a crucial meeting took place. Present were top French officials from Jacques Foccart's office, 'Zik', Michael Okpara, former premier of the Eastern Region and Ojukwu's special political adviser, two top emissaries – Dr. Kenneth Dike, vice-chancellor of Nsukka University, and Francis Nwokedi – and a couple of Biafran officials. It was a long and thorough meeting, the all-absorbing subject being the extent of French military and financial assistance to Biafra in the future. By the time it was over, one thing was crystal clear: French support would be maintained at its current substantial level, which would enable Biafra to survive, given a little luck, but it could not be increased until more states, especially African nations, had recognised Biafra. The Biafran leaders held their own meeting after the French officials had left and decided with one dissenting voice (that of Nwokedi) that the time had come to try and genuinely come to terms with the Nigerians. A cable was drafted and sent off to Ojukwu suggesting that in the light of the limitations of French assistance, the precarious military situation – Aba had just fallen and Owerri was under siege – and the appalling suffering of the Biafran civil population a new initiative was imperative. The course of action they proposed was cautious and tentative. A secret approach, before the Algiers summit began, should be made to Haile Selassie with the hypothesis that if the Biafran government were prepared to give way on sovereignty and accept the principle of 'One Nigeria' what could the Nigerians offer in return in terms of a special arrangement for Biafra. The Emperor, who was known to have a personal interest in bringing the war to an end, should, they suggested, be taken completely into their confidence and the whole matter should be treated with the maximum secrecy. There was also a suggestion that Britain, the U.S.A. And Canada should guarantee any eventual settlement. This was not, by any stretch of the imagination, a revolutionary or treacherous step to take and it committed Biafra to nothing: the proposals amounted to an Aburi-style confederal solution. But Ojukwu's reaction was that of a king who suddenly feels his crown slipping. A furious telegram came back (I have seen it) accusing the group of treason, stressing with an almost hysterical emphasis that Biafra's sovereignty was not negotiable under any circumstances, and peremptorily ordering them all back to Biafra forthwith. Meekly, rather like naughty schoolboys who had been caught talking after lights out, they obeyed – except for 'Zik' who decided that this was the turning point. He went to London and laid low for several months, eventually re-emerging on the federal side. Another leading Biafran, Ralph Uwechue, the Paris envoy, resigned on the same grounds in the following December.” - John de St. Jorre, same book.

Dede1:

France or China never helped Biafra militarily or otherwise. Israeli government did not help as it has war to fight. However, the some individuals in Israel had tendered good words for Biafra in countries such Czechoslovakia and Romania.

Concerning China, I said they supported in words/propaganda. Of course that is almost insignificant when food/medical aid and military support are what are really needed, so it may not have left a permanent memory of support, but they clearly identified which side (Biafra or Nigeria) they supported. There was a reason Nigerian federal troops were on the lookout for Chinese. Read on:

“Of the other Communist powers only Czechoslovakia and China are relevant or interesting. (The East Germans were later alleged to have replaced the Egyptians on the MiGs and Ilyushins but this turned out to be as mythical as the allegation – by Count von Rosen – that the Nigerians were employing regular British R.A.F. Crews.) Czechoslovakia, traditionally a large armament manufacturer and an aggressive salesman to non-Communist countries, was selling arms to both sides before the war began. Then, on Moscow's orders, the Czech government delivered the Delphin jet fighters to the Nigerians and continued supplying the Federal side with a variety of weapons until the liberal Dubcek regime, responding to the growing outcry over Biafra's plight, banned all arms sales in May 1968. Three months later the Russian invasion – Biafra really did have the worst luck in every conceivable field – led to a reversal of the ban and Nigeria continued to get its Delphins and other weapons. Peking first began supporting Biafra when it was clear that the Russians were backing Nigeria. This was undoubtedly the main motive for Communist China's unwavering support for the Biafrans throughout the war, riding roughshod over the unrevolutionary, even bourgeois, nature of the Biafran regime and state, and the O.A.U.'s support for Lagos. Later, radical Tanzania's and Zambia's recognition of Biafra allowed the Chinese to rationalize their policy a little though the concurrent recognitions of 'bourgeois' and 'neo-colonial' Ivory Coast and Gabon did not help. In the broader picture, the civil war was an ideological gift to the Chinese: there, for the first time in history, were the 'running dogs of imperialism' (America and Britain) demonstrably shoulder-to-shoulder with the Soviet 'revisionists' for the whole world to see. The Biafrans were not slow to make the point even though it sounded more than a little bizarre coming from the pen of Ojukwu, son of a millionaire and an ex-public school and Oxford man. 'It is with pleasure,' he wrote in a message to Mao Tse-Tung, 'that I send you and our dear comrades, the Chinese people, in my name and that of the government and people of Biafra, our profound gratitude for the understanding and sympathy you have manifested for our struggle against Anglo-American imperialism sustained by Soviet revisionism.' [Quoted during a broadcast by Radio Ougadougou (Upper Volta) in French, September 30, 1968.] But, again, the Biafrans were out of luck. Despite many stories about Chinese aid, 'instructors', and arms flooding into Biafra from Dar-es-Salaam, there was never any evidence to show that Peking's backing went beyond a torrent of jargon over the air waves. It did, however, produce several 'Chinese scares' in Federal Nigeria which sent the small Formosan-oriented Chinese community of Lagos (there are two excellent Chinese restaurants in the city) scuttling round to the government to declare its undying loyalty to the Federal cause. For others it was more confusing than worrying. An American journalist friend of mine – an austere Bostonian – was traveling close to the front one day and was stopped by a Nigerian soldier manning a roadblock.
'Hey, you dere' – the soldier shouted, shoving his rifle in through the car window – 'are you Chinese?'
'Do I look like a Chinese?' replied the American.
'I don't know, I've never seen a Chinese.' "

-John de St. Jorre, The Nigerian Civil War.

So I actually had it wrong, the Chinese supported Biafra in words only to spite Russia after the Sino-Soviet split, and not for economic reasons.

Dede1: Portugal and Spain were the only western European countries involved in any form of purchase of arms for Biafra. Sweden mounted heated diplomatic flurries in UN on behalf of Biafra and took offence against Nigeria information commissioner Anthony Enahoro on the use of starvation as a weapon of war. Ireland might have diplomatically assisted Biafra in order to spite British politically.

There was no time Israel shipped weapons captured during the 6-day (six) war to Biafra

Israel shipped nothing. I never said they did. How can you ship anything to a blockaded country, anyways? I said they slipped (as in, transferred covertly) captured Soviet weapons – weapons that couldn't be directly claimed as evidence of Israeli military support - to the Biafrans. Or are you suggesting that weapons were not transported into Biafra aerially? That's not even up for debate.
It would only be Israel's best option since they couldn’t engage in direct military support or compete in spending of resources, financial or otherwise, with two larger powers. If you don’t believe they did, fine, but I wouldn't call it revisionism. For example, technically, Israel has [b]no [/b]nuclear weapons, since they deny the existence of such, but nobody would call somebody a revisionist for pointing out that they do indeed have a nuclear weapons program and nuclear weapons.

This is to my beloved Igbo brothers: "a su umu wonke lu cha ogu, umu wayi e kwu o kwu di na e". When men are done fighting, the women come out to do the talking! I will like us to ignore all these histroy revisionists who feel it was a bad thing for Ndigbo to stand their ground and fight against aggression. The war effort of all these southern revisonists were and will remain inconsequential in any future conflicts. Smart and discerning folks knows the truth.
Again, ignore these trolls for even if Jesus were to come down from heaven to tell them the truth about the biafran war, they will not believe him. Their hearts have been hardened to believe all the negative stereotypes about Ndigbo. Ndigbo should be careful and seek knowledge/truth about the war of 67-70. The nigeria of 1966 is very much alive in the nigeria of 2011. If any Igbo needs any evidence to this stated fact(s), just take a look (read) around Igbo topics on nairaland.

alex101:

The war effort of all these southern revisonists were and will remain inconsequential in any future conflicts. Smart and discerning folks knows the truth.
   

Glad to hear it. Some dishonest people aren't really discerning enough to admit who the true aggressors and responders are in a conflict and like to drag irrelevant groups into it to fit their skewed world view. Some true revisionists on this board won't admit such and like to blame imaginary "betrayers" rather than bad luck, bad numerical odds, bad diplomatic strategy, and unrealistic perceptions of one's self and one's opponents for outcomes of events. Hopefully any future conflicts allow all groups to remain inconsequential that desire to remain so.

Anyway, this thread was not even supposed to be about the Biafran war, but about a very real attempt at complete historical revision by one Dr. Okocha.

The parents of these histroy revisionists have fed their children lies about their role in the events leading up to the war. Their forebearers covered up their role in the genocide against biafrans. From kano to jos to lagos to benin, these southern saboteurs joined their hausa/fulani masters in the pogrom of 19966, hence their trying to re-write histroy. We are not fooled. below are facts :
Were middle belters involed in the genocide of 1966: YES
Were Yorubas Involved in the genocide of 1966: YES (in Lagos, Abeokuta, Ibadan et al)
Were midwesterners involved in the genocide : YES ( in Benin)
Now, to the war proper, it is a well known fact that it was the British, USSR, arab league represented by Egypt that gave the overwhelming support (full military and diplomatic) to nigeria. Biafra was blockaded by british naval war ship masquerading as nigeria's, with british personnel manning the warship. The soviet bomber jets were actually flown by soviets and egyptian personnel. Even at that, nigerian evil doers who have made a deal with the devil had to resort to use of starvation to finally subdue biafra. So all those one nigerian revisionists can write all they want, the facts remains! On judgement day, we all give account of these injustice/wickedness of neighbors against neighbors. I am not interested in convincing anyone to not re-write histroy, or not to cover up the genocide of their parents against mine. All I know is we (biafrans) are proud of our parents' war effort and we shall never forget. Today, I look at the Igbo race with radiant pride and gratitude to God for giving us a leader like the Ikemba Ojukwu during our darkest hour.

.

Glad to hear it. Some dishonest people aren't really discerning enough to admit who the true aggressors and responders are in a conflict and like to drag irrelevant groups into it to fit their skewed world view. Some true revisionists on this board won't admit such and like to blame imaginary "betrayers" rather than bad luck, bad numerical odds, bad diplomatic strategy, and unrealistic perceptions of one's self and one's opponents for outcomes of events. Hopefully any future conflicts allow all groups to remain inconsequential that desire to remain so

Physics,

I read each and every word of your numerous posts. . . . the above highlight is the summary of everything narrated in your posts and in my opinion, the best closure.

Good job!


Alex,

I sympathise with the Biafran cause but I am not a fan when it comes to the forceful and arrogant blasphemy of Nigerian history. In the past and on many occasions here in NL we have discussed the pre and post-independence periods of our history and in each instance when revelations are made about atrocities, cowardice and betrayals of Biafran nationals your people find it hard to swallow.

I need one or two of your people who are interested in digging up the root of this conflict so we can make true assessment and pinpoint (1) where your folks went wrong; (2) where you are now; (3) where you wantto go and (4) how to get there.

I have always maintained that Igbo is a wrong majority in Nigerian politics. I still believe and hold firmly onto that claim. In geopolitical dimension and in time marker for African history, Igbo has no majority or milestone relevance. Your emergence is after the arrival of the colonialists. Prior to that other tribes in the East dominated over you. If you or other Ndigbo here dispute this point then I am open to discuss it and present the facts.

Nonetheless these above, I still feel that you suffered too much in the war and till today you are still battling from the residual pains of that conflict. There is need for healing but the healing will involve committment from other rival tribes acting as a support base for your spirit. The problem is the same base that will support your recovery are the very ones you spend your days and rage harrassing with promises of future war and battle. You need a correction in your priorities.

alex101:

The parents of these histroy revisionists have fed their children lies about their role in the events leading up to the war. Their forebearers covered up their role in the genocide against biafrans. From kano to jos to lagos to benin, these southern saboteurs joined their hausa/fulani masters in the pogrom of 19966, hence their trying to re-write histroy. We are not fooled. below are facts :

Do you care to start on what led to the pogroms? How soldiers of SE extraction killed other regional leaders and "FORGOT" to kill theirs.

Rather after their noble acts, they went to coffee with the Premier of the East. Maybe that would be a good point to start.

Even today, if anything similar happens that is Soldiers of a particular ethnic group kill leaders of other groups, and a leader (Ironsi) who was supposed to clamp down and punish offenders was perceived to be handling it with levity. Expect a Pogrom. Its as simple as that.

Negro_Ntns:

I need one or two of your people who are interested in digging up the root of this conflict so we can make true assessment and pinpoint (1) where your folks went wrong; (2) where you are now; (3) where you wantto go and (4) how to get there.

Is someone going to take Negro_Nts up on his challenge?

I think it will enrich the discourse here.

Any takers?

Kilode, well I am told to stay the high ground and not go into discussions that hurt emotions. So my apology for even bringing it up folks.

However, I am still open to contribute in discussions to the healing process and the way forward.

PhysicsMHD:



1. Frederick Forsyth, who made numerous other errors in his books on Biafra/Ojukwu.

Now let's approach this logically:

“At the outbreak of war, the French government, unlike the United States, did not take a formal stand on arms sales. It was only a year later (June 1968) that the foreign minister, Michel Debré, announced an arms embargo. In the meantime, several Panhard armoured cars, already in the pipeline to Nigeria when the war began, had been delivered, and supplies negotiated by private dealers in France had continued either with the explicit permission or the 'blind eye' connivance of the government. Most of these went to Biafra but the occasional planeload was also sold to the Nigerians. The French did, however, refuse Federal requests to buy jet fighters and heavy weapons. The African recognitions charged the emphasis but not the rationale of France's arms policy. From May 1968 until the end of the war, the French government took a direct hand in supplying weapons to Biafra, routing them through the Ivory Coast and Gabon. Until de Gaulle's pro-Biafran statement of September, the supply was an uncertain trickle [The student revolution in France in May 1968 and the subsequent election presumably deflected much of the French government's attention from Biafra and other foreign problems.] but after that it grew to massive proportions, reaching an estimated peak of 200 tons a week in the autumn of 1969. As a simple 'cover' the Ivory Coast and Gabon governments supplied the Biafrans from their own stocks which the French then replenished. On other occasions, weapons destined for French army units based in these two countries were sent to the Biafrans. This helped the French government to maintain the fiction that it was not aiding the Biafrans. Some consignments were paid for, others were gifts. But neither the amount nor the nature of the arms – few heavy weapons were supplied – was adequate to ensure that the Biafrans stood the remotest chance of winning the war. It almost seemed as if the French did not want Biafra to win the war. 'Semi-recognition' and half-hearted assistance hardly reflected total commitment. The truth was that France decided to play the game both ways, partly because of the unexpected solidarity and strength of Nigeria's allies and partly due to innate caution. There were other pressures deterring a complete alienation of the Nigerians. Francophone Africa, France's primary interest in the the continent, was deeply riven by the crisis. Niger and Cameroon, two of Nigeria's French-speaking neighbours were as warmly  pro-Federal as the Ivory Coast and Gabon were pro-Biafran. The General's Arab friends were, to a man, behind the Federal government. The French were beginning to find themselves out on a highly precarious limb, in the bizarre and not entirely congenial company of Portugal, South Africa, Rhodesia, Communist China and - oddest of all – Israel. Biafra's four African friends provided some comfort but as the war dragged on and the expected recognition landslide did not come, France's isolation increased. [De Gaulle's 9th September statement suggested that French recognition of Biafra was possible 'if Africa willed it', implying that more African recognitions would enable France itself to take the plunge.] In the later stages, Federal lobbies at home began to make themselves felt, greatly helped by a marked improvement in the quality of the staff in the Nigerian embassy in Paris. French military intervention in Chad on the side of the government against the Northern rebellion in May 1969 showed signs of being a long-drawn-out, messy affair and pointed up the dangers of  open-ended military commitments in Africa. So, having radiated all sorts of positive vibrations indicating an imminent recognition of Biafra, the French began to pull back and hedge their bets. They were greatly helped in this back-tracking operation by the Nigerians who, throughout this episode, had shown a remarkable sangfroid and refused to be rushed into a hasty or emotional reaction. They took none of the obvious reprisals: breaking off diplomatic relations, confiscating French property, harassing French nationals. The main reason for this was that the Nigerian External Affairs Ministry feared that such a reaction would push France over the brink to full recognition of Biafra. The Nigerians also had a healthy – and possibly exaggerated – respect for the French government's capacity for ruthlessness in pursuing its African policies. The memory of French paratroopers fluttering down over Libreville and swiftly crushing an attempted coup against President Bongo's predecessor in 1964 was never far from their minds. The Chad intervention – this time by the even tougher Foreign Legion – merely confirmed these fears. If France recognized, they argued, there was no knowing what an irascible de Gaulle might do; massive shipments of heavy armaments, jet planes, Legionaires and mercenaries, money and diplomatic support – nothing could be ruled out, everything would be possible. And Nigeria's allies – Britain and Russia – could not be counted on  to match such an escalation. French recognition would also, it was felt, finally break the diplomatic log-jam which the four African recognitions of Biafra had so far failed to do. Another factor was Nigeria's exports to the E.E.C. Countries which are considerable, the latter together representing a larger market than Britain;  France takes almost half of Nigeria's groundnut crop. Therefore, the Federal government limited the expression of its pent-up rage to formal notes of protest to the Quai d'Orsay, the occasional demonstration in Lagos and a lot of wishful thinking. But it worked. The Quai d'Orsay, with some relief since it was fundamentally pro-Federal in politics and sentiment, played the game. This stylish but essentially hypocritical arrangement had the added advantage of leaving a door open for the French if and when they decided to make their peace.“ -  John de St. Jorre, The Nigerian Civil War



Do you actually believe that Gabon and Ivory Coast were/are some kind of weapons manufacturing Meccas, with huge military caches stuffed into some mysterious black box somewhere? It was all French. Step back, drop the emotional sword and shield and think for a minute.  The French were opportunists, just like the Russians, and for a while their opportunism did translate to tangible support (though not nearly enough).

It is wise not to keep blind eyes on illogical stories being perpetrated on this forum. I am still wondering how and through what means France supplied Biafra with Panhard AML-90. There was no motorized weapon in Biafran arsenal except Aba-made converted Bedford dump truck into a fearsome looking gun ship and it did not last long. In fact, the only Panhard Biafra ever used was a captured one at Abagana by a team led by Corporal Nwafor who died in the operation and hence named “Corporal Nwafor”.

Maybe France slipped the weapons into Biafra as you have alleged in one your post.

PhysicsMHD:

“A week before the summit, on 7th September, in the Hotel Napoléon, along Avenue de Friedland, a small and discreet hotel in the heart of Paris, a crucial meeting took place. Present were top French officials from Jacques Foccart's office, 'Zik', Michael Okpara, former premier of the Eastern Region and Ojukwu's special political adviser, two top emissaries – Dr. Kenneth Dike, vice-chancellor of Nsukka University, and Francis Nwokedi – and a couple of Biafran officials. It was a long and thorough meeting, the all-absorbing subject being the extent of French military and financial assistance to Biafra in the future. By the time it was over, one thing was crystal clear: French support would be maintained at its current substantial level, which would enable Biafra to survive, given a little luck, but it could not be increased until more states, especially African nations, had recognised Biafra. The Biafran leaders held their own meeting after the French officials had left and decided with one dissenting voice (that of Nwokedi) that the time had come to try and genuinely come to terms with the Nigerians. A cable was drafted and sent off to Ojukwu suggesting that in the light of the limitations of French assistance, the precarious military situation – Aba had just fallen and Owerri was under siege – and the appalling suffering of the Biafran civil population a new initiative was imperative. The course of action they proposed was cautious and tentative. A secret approach, before the Algiers summit began, should be made to Haile Selassie with the hypothesis that if the Biafran government were prepared to give way on sovereignty and accept the principle of 'One Nigeria' what could the Nigerians offer in return in terms of a special arrangement for Biafra. The Emperor, who was known to have a personal interest in bringing the war to an end, should, they suggested, be taken completely into their confidence and the whole matter should be treated with the maximum secrecy. There was also a suggestion that Britain, the U.S.A. And Canada should guarantee any eventual settlement. This was not, by any stretch of the imagination, a revolutionary or treacherous step to take and it committed Biafra to nothing: the proposals amounted to an Aburi-style confederal solution. But Ojukwu's reaction was that of a king who suddenly feels his crown slipping. A furious telegram came back (I have seen it) accusing the group of treason, stressing with an almost hysterical emphasis that Biafra's sovereignty was not negotiable under any circumstances, and peremptorily ordering them all back to Biafra forthwith. Meekly, rather like naughty schoolboys who had been caught talking after lights out, they obeyed – except for 'Zik' who decided that this was the turning point. He went to London and laid low for several months, eventually re-emerging on the federal side. Another leading Biafran, Ralph Uwechue, the Paris envoy, resigned on the same grounds in the following December.” - John de St. Jorre, same book.

Please I hope you could put forward the full and accurate time because by 7th September, 1969 for all intent and practical purposes, the war had ended. Joe Achuzie also commented about the outcome of this summit.

Negro_Ntns:

Kilode, well I am told to stay the high ground and not go into discussions that hurt emotions. So my apology for even bringing it up folks.

However, I am still open to contribute in discussions to the healing process and the way forward.

OK bro, I'm sure that will be beneficial too.

PhysicsMHD:

Israel shipped nothing. I never said they did. How can you ship anything to a blockaded country, anyways? I said they slipped (as in, transferred covertly) captured Soviet weapons – weapons that couldn't be directly claimed as evidence of Israeli military support - to the Biafrans. Or are you suggesting that weapons were not transported into Biafra aerially? That's not even up for debate.
It would only be Israel's best option since they couldn’t engage in direct military support or compete in spending of resources, financial or otherwise, with two larger powers. If you don’t believe they did, fine, but I wouldn't call it revisionism. For example, technically, Israel has [b]no [/b]nuclear weapons, since they deny the existence of such, but nobody would call somebody a revisionist for pointing out that they do indeed have a nuclear weapons program and nuclear weapons.

It is also interesting to read that you preferred the word-slipped instead. Please surmise how you can slip heavy weapons into Biafra when it was totally blockaded? Look pal, most of the weapons Biafra used were captured except light infantry weapons that came into Biafra through clandestine flights in small DC-3s that were bringing medicine and food. Again, these slow flying DC-3s were chased and shutdown by Nigerian MIG-17s, 19s and 21s piloted by Egyptians, Australians and East Germans.

Most people who are bent on distortion of recorded events both in the protectorates and Nigeria would want an undiscerning onlooker to believe the pogrom was as a result of the coup precipitated by elements of Nigerian armed forces.

I guess the pogrom in 1956 was also as a result of a coup. Granted the coup was not an exclusive machination of Igbo officers in the Nigerian army, it will take a determine effort and threat of death to their entire family in order to believe otherwise.

Dede1:


It is wise not to keep blind eyes on illogical stories being perpetrated on this forum. I am still wondering how and through what means France supplied Biafra with Panhard AML-90. There was no motorized weapon in Biafran arsenal except Aba-made converted Bedford dump truck into a fearsome looking gun ship and it did not last long. In fact, the only Panhard Biafra ever used was a captured one at Abagana by a team led by Corporal Nwafor who died in the operation and hence named “Corporal Nwafor”.

Maybe France slipped the weapons into Biafra as you have alleged in one your post.

I don't know where you read in there that Biafra was sold a Panhard AML or any other armored car.


It clearly states that before fighting broke out, Panhard armored cars were already on order to Nigeria and that the sales were completed. How can you interpret that as anyone claiming Biafra was sold armored cars?

It then goes on to state that for all the other sales to either Nigeria or Biafra, private French arms dealers (such as Pierre Laureys) - occasionally sponsored or supported by the government - made sales and that the vast majority of these French sales were to Biafra and not Nigeria.


The Corporal Nwafor was a captured Saladin armored car (British), not a Panhard, to the best of my knowledge.

Dede1:


Please I hope you could put forward the full and accurate time because by 7th September, 1969 for all intent and practical purposes, the war had ended.  Joe Achuzie also commented about the outcome of this summit.

That quote was referring to 1968.

Dede1:

It is also interesting to read that you preferred the word-slipped instead. Please surmise how you can slip heavy weapons into Biafra when it was totally blockaded? Look pal, most of the weapons Biafra used were captured except light infantry weapons that came into Biafra through clandestine flights in small DC-3s that were bringing medicine and food. Again, these slow flying DC-3s were chased and shutdown by Nigerian MIG-17s, 19s and 21s piloted by Egyptians, Australians and East Germans.  

Who says anybody "slipped heavy weapons into" Biafra?

This is really getting too far into semantics. I said slipped weapons (where did I say heavy weapons?) to Biafrans, anyways. That should be easy to understand. Nowhere is anyone claiming Israel was directly transporting anything to any country.

And yes, both Nigeria and Biafra used hired pilots after Biafra took the war to the skies. The Rhodesian mercenary pilot Jack Malloch (sometimes spelled Mallock), for example, transported arms into Biafra while working for the French secret service. And then of course there was von Rosen.

http://www.terryaspinall.com/03merc/biafra/index.html

http://www.acig.org/artman/publish/printer_351.shtml

http://napoleon130.tripod.com/id307.html

^^^^
Some pieces on the Biafran use of mercenaries and aircraft and the locally manufactured weaponry of Biafra. The last link talks at length about one Jean Zumbach, a mercenary who went by the name Johnny Brown or Kamikaze Brown (and it also mentions Willy Achukwe, the Biafran bomb guru).

Negro_Ntns:



I sympathise with the Biafran cause but I am not a fan when it comes to the forceful and arrogant blasphemy of Nigerian history.  In the past and on many occasions here in NL we have discussed the pre and post-independence periods of our history and in each instance when revelations are made about atrocities, cowardice and betrayals of Biafran nationals your people find it hard to swallow.  

I need one or two of your people who are interested in digging up the root of this conflict so we can make true assessment and pinpoint (1) where your folks went wrong; (2) where you are now; (3) where you wantto go and (4) how to get there.

I have always maintained that Igbo is a wrong majority in Nigerian politics.  I still believe and hold firmly onto that claim.  In geopolitical dimension and in time marker for African history, Igbo has no majority or milestone relevance.  Your emergence is after the arrival of the colonialists. Prior to that other tribes in the East dominated over you.  If you or other Ndigbo here dispute this point then I am open to discuss it and present the facts.  

What are you talking about? This really threw me. I think you just want to fight somebody.

Posted by: PhysicsMHD

What are you talking about? This really threw me. I think you just want to fight somebody.

hehehe! That guy is re-tarded.

He was baiting Igbos with his foolish rant. Nobody bit it though.

A man is entitled to live in a permanent state of delusion.

Silence is the best answer to a fool.

I could not keep closed eyes to the furious nature of distortion of facts about Nigeria/Biafra war by those individuals whose fathers, uncles, brothers or even their very self fought against Biafra to maintain one of the worse, baseless, rudderless, directionless and intellectually devoid colonial contraptions called Nigeria.

There is no iota of reference where France supported Biafra as Britain or USSR or Egypt supported Nigeria. The distortion has been laced with fallacies and out right falsehood to justify their participation in colossally failed project such as One-Nigeria. When they are not busy concocting conjectures about French and Israeli assistance to Biafra, they are falsely telling the world about South Africa support to Biafra. However, one of the Europeans who fought in Nigeria/Biafra war Boozy Bonzo Bond who flew Air force jets for Nigeria was a South African. 

So-called French assistance to Biafra came as individual or group efforts. It is very funny that all the motorized weaponry captured during the civil war were Nigerian hardware such Corporal Nwafor- a British supplied Saladin, Oguta Boy- a Parhard AML sold to Nigeria by France and Uzuakoli boy- Ferret supplied by British. My question remains that since Nigeria was better armed and equipped than Biafra, how heavy weapons were captured from Biafrans?

Dede1:

I could not keep closed eyes to the furious nature of distortion of facts about Nigeria/Biafra war by those individuals whose fathers, uncles, brothers or even their very self fought against Biafra to maintain one of the worse, baseless, rudderless, directionless and intellectually devoid colonial contraption called Nigeria.

There is no iota of reference where France supported Biafra as Britain or USSR or Egypt supported Nigeria. The distortion has been laced with fallacies and out right falsehood to justify their participation in colossally failed project such as One-Nigeria. When they are not busy concocting conjures about French and Israeli assistance to Biafra, they are falsely telling the world about South Africa support to Biafra. However, a European South African who fought in Nigeria/Biafra war Boozy Bonzo Bond who flew Air force jets for Nigeria.

So-called French assistance to Biafra came as individual or group efforts. It is very funny that all the motorized weaponry captured during the civil war were Nigerian hardware such Corporal Nwafor- a British supplied Saladin, Oguta Boy- a Parhard AML sold to Nigeria by France and Uzuakoli boy- Ferret supplied by British. My question remains that since Nigeria was better armed and equipped than Biafra, how heavy weapons were captured from Biafrans?

Work on your ignorance and lack of basic knowledge about your own country instead of cutting and pasting grammar from Thesaurus.


Shut your mouth sometimes,

France, whatever might have been her secret wishes, could not, in her own interest, advance beyond a certain point to help le pauvre petit Biafra. Throughout much of the war, Biafra’s lone powerful backer was France.

Her active and wholehearted intervention was the only real chance Biafra had to “make it.” Yet by 9th September 1968, General de Gaulle had made it abundantly clear that “in this matter France has aided and aids Biafra within possible limits


http://www.sunnewsonline.com/webpages/news/national/2009/oct/24/national-24-10-2009-002.html