₦airaland Forum

CyberG: Ekt...are you asking rhetorical questions

They aren't rhetorical...I basically want these guys to commit to certain positions so that we can follow the logical implications. Notice how I did this earlier with afam4eva.

If you don't do this, then they'll weasel out and hold fast to their preconceived notions. My approach forces them to face the contradictions.

ACM10: Those ships and aircraft are searched before the are allowed to proceed to the enemies territory. Preventing relief materials, food and drugs after thorough search was a deliberate policy.

Gowon offered this option, but Ojukwu refused to agree to this policy, claiming that Nigeria would somehow sabatoge said food. I'll see if I can find a citation for this.

I've told you already that you boring me with your dullness. How on earth would you expect me to memorize the exact international convention which outlawed starvation as a weapon of war?

I would expect a man as non-dull as you to do the legwork and back up your claim with facts (i.e. a quote), so we can verify that you are interpreting the law correctly. Do you not get my point?

Sorry can you elaborate on the term "general blockade"? This is serious!

I.e., a blockade of everything. Nothing allowed to come in and out. If one does such, is this the same as a starvation policy?

Well, the books I have read make no mention of invasion and genocide of Eastern border towns prior to the declaration of independence.

My suspicion is that you and realchange simply are mistaken.

Preventing food, medicine and relief materials from getting to the civilians is condemned all over the world. So differentiate blockade from the deliberate policy of starvation as a means to win the war.

How does one ensure that this food, medicine, etc will go to civilians, rather than military?

Have Ojukwu promise, and simply take him at his word?

ACM10: Blockade is an acceptable means of prosecuting a war. It prevents arms and ammunitions from reaching your opponents.

Agreed. But, given that the same ships/planes/etc that carry weapons can also carry food, it seems that 95%+ of blockades in history must also have prevented food from entering, yes?

But deliberate policy of starvation is a war crime.

You said "war crime." So presumably you mean according to some sort of UN conventions. Which one, specifically?

Preventing food, medicine and relief materials from getting to the civilians is condemned all over the world. So differentiate blockade from the deliberate policy of starvation as a means to win the war.

Is a general blockade the same as a starvation policy? Again, how does one implement a blockade while letting food through?

ACM10: My dear, it's better to fight and secure a honourable peace than to play coward in the face of grave danger that threatened to wipe off you people

Ah, but let us first establish that this threat existed.

This is why I commented earlier that your are ignorant as far as this topic is concerned. Do you know that there was skirmishes at the border towns which was initiated by the Nigerian troops? The skirmishes displaced many easterners and forced them to flee to eastern heartlands.

So in short, Ojukwu seceded because even prior to secession, Gowon was skirmishing with Ojukwu's forces and/or killing innocent civilians. Possibly even genociding them, according to realchange.

So, Ojukwu's secession was a direct response to enemy soldiers sitting right on his border and already invading.

Is this your version of what happened, and why he secceeded? Yes, or no?

You are beginning to sound monotonous. Seems like you are bereft of ideas.

My typical strategy for dealing with slow individuals is to repeat the same idea using different, simpler words, in the hope that they will understand.

Let me break it down for you, since you aren't seeming to get it.

1. Secession did not in any way preserve/prevent any massacres:
a. It didn't help those who remained in the north.
b. It didn't help those in the west.
c. Those in the east were in no danger of being massacred, as the civilian populace there was not Hausa, and moreover the military and police in the East at that time were under Ojukwu's command.

Do you get the point now?

You saying that the #s in the North and West were minuscule actually improves my point for me.....

ACM10: Can you give us an estimate of Ndigbo population in the north after the massacre? Can you name any Igbo resident in the north after the massacre?

Are you claiming that the # in both the north and west was zero?

This shows that you are ignorant on this topic. Gowon has already launched war at Gakem and advancing on the east from the north and south. They were committing genocide already in many border towns of the east.
"Were they in the danger of being massacred?" sounds dumb to me. They've committed massacre twice and were committing genocides at the border towns. Then you are asking whether they are in the danger of being massacred. SMH

So prior to the declaration of independence by Biafra, you are claiming that Gowon had already commited genocide near the east

Are you very sure that you know what you are talking about?

So I take it you won't answer questions (a) and (b).

Nor will you provide a quote from the Geneva convention condemning blockades in civil wars, I take it.

Anyone else who can answer (a) or (b), or show where blockades are banned, feel free to do so.

ACM10: Now answer me! Did Achebe level any false accusation against Awolowo? If yes, can you pinpoint it from the excerpt of his memoir?

Well, he says nothing that can be pinned down to the level of true or false. Everything he says in this article is pure speculation and innuendo.

E.g.: "It is my impression that Awolowo was driven by an overriding ambition for power, for himself and for his Yoruba people."

Am I supposed to respond to "It is my impression" with TRUE or FALSE?

The point I am making is that the story he is weaving makes it seem as if only one side is to blame. Which if this is his claim, is false.

[quote author=re@lchange]1. How does seceding preserve the lives of those still remaining in the North or West? After seceding, are their lives more safe or less safe?

secession came after, not before easterners left the north and west[/quote]So secession certainly could not have been for the purpose of saving lives in the north and west, you seem to agree.

2. For those in the East prior to secession, were they in any danger of being massacred? If not, then again, how does seceding preserve their lives?

they were in danger of being wiped out
take it or leave it
if you doubt, pick up a book and read

By whom? The non-existent northern troops in the Eastern region? You do know that the only soldiers at that time in the East were controlled by Ojukwu, yes?

So:
a) Who was going to massacre these folk in the East?
b) How does seceding prevent that from happening?

[quote author=re@lchange]you want me to post a proof?
hate wasting time with dumb lots though[/quote]Indeed. Post evidence that a blockade during a civil war violates Geneva conventions (or any international law, for that matter).

Two quite simple questions.

1. How does seceding preserve the lives of those still remaining in the North or West? After seceding, are their lives more safe or less safe?
2. For those in the East prior to secession, were they in any danger of being massacred? If not, then again, how does seceding preserve their lives?

1a) Certainly the political parts of reconstruction were opposed by southerners. But not the economic parts, which also ended prematurely.
1b) FDR came quite a bit after the civil war..
1c) Yes, the south is subsidized by the coastal states today. But that isn't very relevant to what occurred immediately after the US civil war.

2) There is nothing in the Geneva conventions that says that blockades are not permitted, nor that you must do a Marshall plan for the side you defeat in war. Again, cool that the US did it, but by no means par for the course.

3) Well, agreed, it certainly wasn't kindness. The point is that with a strong European economy, everyone is better off. But my point is, this was a unique thing...it certainly wasn't the standard at that time.

Did this same military governor not successfully remove all the northern soldiers from the eastern region, or not, prior to the Aburi accords?

So, essentially all of the soldiers in the Eastern region at the time of the Aburi accords were under his command, yes?

If it were me in that position, then I would be in no rush. I would take my sweet time.

Antivirus92: i really lack words to describe you!

Of what relevance is this to me? It isn't as if I am seeking your approval or something. Either rebut the point I made or keep it moving.

ACM10: . . . and whose opinion coincides with the truth? Or better still, give us an account that rates high on your truth-o-meter.

My claim here is that if there is "blame" for the civilians who starved to death in Biafra, then there is guilt also on the Biafran side. In particular, Achebe's implication that the culpability only lies with the Nigerian side is false.

Do you dispute this? In other words, do you agree with Achebe, that:
a) There was a "wrong" done when those civilians died to the blockade
b) all of the blame lies on the Nigerian side?

I take it that you grew up in the US, right? You do realize that reconstruction in the American South was aborted, ended prematurely? And this is something Southerners are to some extent still bitter about?

The USSR stripped Germany of many assets, at first. Factories dismantled and shipped over. They may later have poured resources into East Germany so that it wouldn't be too weak relatively to West Germany, but their intentions there were anything but good.

And yes, Japan received asisstance. But Germany after WW1 did not. How can you only pick and choose examples that suit you, and ignore the fact that reconstruction for the losing side is not the norm in war?

Crayola1: My point as much as some folks like to claim that their "truth" is the truest version of events, the real facts are that its not. Which is why any thread on the civil war reads like an out of control mad lib with everyone weaving anecdotes and a few facts as the authoritive version of events.

The cause of war is never clear 100% but unlike other places its even harder to pin down because its Nigeria. A place where most people more often then not regurgitate what was passed down as generation and becomes fact. It doesnt help matters that talking about the war is taboo that any real tidbits of value will be lost to time.

Anyone can talk as much as they like about it.

The issue I have is that Achebe is trying to portray the other side as demons, and doesn't seem to accept and culpability for his side. E.g., the blockade and ensuing starvation.

That is quite dishonest.

Which "most countries?"

Did the Soviets rebuild Eastern Germany properly?

Was Germany rebuild after WW1?

The Allies were magnanimous after WW2, in part because they learned lessons from WW1. But this certainly doesn't mean that "most" countries do the same after warfare.

Crayola1: The man is entitled to his opinions

Of course

and his version is no more right or wrong than the next, because most of you here yourselves can't even agree on the basics about the war.

If a certain opinion coincides with the truth (or is closer to the truth), you are saying that it is just as valid as one that is very far away from the truth? This is quite a bold claim.

What is even the connection between them being massacred and the declaration of independence.

Are you saying that those within Biafra were being massacred, and declaring independence saved them?

If you are referring to those outside of Biafra, say still in the north...how on earth does seceding save them? Doesn't that actually increase the jeopardy they'd face?

I think that you guys aren't thinking very clearly or critically about this stuff.

In any case, if someone hates Awolowo, no wahala. I'd probably hate him too if I were Igbo/Biafran.

But, it is pretty dishonest to make the other side appear to be demons and make yourself look like an angel, as Achebe seems to be doing.

afam4eva: You mean you'll prepare for ten years for a war? Even though you know that you're not a life regional premier. You'll probably be outsted in a few years.

Ousted by who? Internally or externally?

Meanwhile, while you're preparing, your people will keep being massacred, lef, right and center but you'll still be preparing. I bow for you oga.

Were they being massacred at the time Biafra was declared? Or several months (or was it even a year) before?

Note that it has never been Ojukwu's decision to secede from the beginning. All this was brought to the fore Post Aguiyi-Ironsi and the events that came thereafter.

The same thing we accuse Ojukwu for doing is the same thing that no one has the balls to do today despite the fact that things are worse of that they were pre-biafra. We keep shouting break-Nigeria from left, right and center and no one seems to be stepping up to the plate. The moment another Ojukwu steps up from the east, thirty years down the line, he will be labelled as the worse thing to happen to Nigeria.

Like I said, just because you want to do something, doesn't mean it should be done right away. Timing is critical...and can be the difference between success and failure.

I like the way Germany did it, for example.

They never confronted the UK, France, etc directly.

Hitler built up secretly, gobbled up smaller, weaker countries like Austria etc. Then when he was ready, finally confronted the Allies.

He didn't pick the fight in 1935, he decided to wait and force the other side to make the first move.

That is how you do it, imo

afam4eva: Now, let me chip in some questions and i need your sincere answer:

if you were in Ojukwu's position and you were the head of the western region, what would you have done differently from Ojukwu? We're assuming the capital of Nigeria was not in Lagos.

I definitely would not have done it the way Ojukwu did it. I'd have delayed, delayed, delayed...building up an army and resources secretly.

Declare independence in 1970 or 1975 from a stronger position rather than from a weak one.

I figure that if you want to confront someone much bigger/stronger than you, you need to be very prepared.

OK. So if evil/wrong was done, then both sides are to blame.

That is enough for me.

I simply hate this attempt by Achebe to portray the other side as evil, while not mentioning any questionable acts by his own side (including not considering surrendering when completely surrounded and blockaded from vital resources).

As for whether the blame should be shared out 80%/20% or 50%/50%, that is another discussion...one I'm not too interested in

afam4eva: There was no need for the war in the first place. It's only where there's a war that the issue of a blockade will come up. If Gowon was a wise man and didn't have a hidden vendetta against the easterners, he would have sort a war to resolve the issue. The truth is that anybody can declare anything: An Ogoni group did it, an Igbo Biafran group also did same. Imagine if our current leaders decide to tow the path of Gowon...Gowon wasn't a wise man in my opinion.

Does the blame for starting the war only lie with the Nigerian side? And none with the Biafran side? Is this your claim?

afam4eva: You've not read the whole book to know that for sure...Also don't forget that Achebe was a Biafran to the core and he'll come across to be bias. If you're expecting an unbiased umpire in Achebe, then forget it.

1. Certainly in this article, he seems to place all the blame on Nigeria, and none on Biafra. My question is, do you agree with this or not? Does Biafra have any culpability for those who died of starvation, or does all of the blame lie with Nigeria?

2. Finally, you seem to keep dodging my question about what the Nigerian side should have done. Do you believe that they were obliged to lift the blockade? Yes, or no?

afam4eva: Now to your question:

Let's assume for a second that Ojukwu was wrong to declare Biafra. Wasn't it also wrong for the FG to declare war without looking for alternative methods to resolve the issue. The mistake people make is that they always beleive that it was Ojukwu that declared the war but it was the government of Nigeria and Ojukwu had to defend his people.

If blame lies with both Nigeria and Biafra, why is Achebe only mentioning Nigeria (Awolowo)?

You didn't answer my question.

What should Nigeria have done? Knowing that the blockade affected mostly women and children (as presumably many other blockades have in the past), should it have lifted the blockade?

Yes, or no?

So to be clear, are we all in agreement that a blockade is nothing new?

If so, then the issue becomes one more of morality, being "nice", whatever.

My question then is, why is the burden of morality, niceness only on Nigeria?

Shouldn't Biafra have been nice to its citizens by surrendering, rather than allowing many of them to starve to death?

Why is the burden only on Nigeria, and none on Biafra?