₦airaland Forum

mcchaka:
......Umu Ofe manu....okwi hotara,

ibo need to wage war. because, biafra riot is just a civil disorder.

pazienza:
Lol, if I provide the link to my source, will it make you accept the facts? The answer is No. But nevertheless, here we go.
http://www.nybooks.com/articles/archives/1970/apr/23/an-exchange-on-biafra/

Non of the Eastern region leaders were Ojukwu stooge, Ojukwu never had such powers, infact, Ojukwu was personally against secession but was prevailed upon to declare the independence of Eastern region by the consultative assembly made up of political and traditional rulers in the East.

Sorry, they were stooges. Ojukwu still retained the right to hire and fire them at will. Afterall, he appointed them.

Secondly, Ojukwu was NOT against secession. He rejected all calls for a resolution of the problem, and insisted on going ahead with the war. Your link has just opened up and I read the source . But going further down, there are a lot of instructive comments made by other scholars in that article.

Kindly see one of those comments below:

Within the East, prior to secession and afterwards, there was no free expression of opinion by the minority groups, and Biafra was created without any democratic consultation of the minorities. Hand-picked “representatives” voted for secession or were locked up in Enugu...

Reports of Biafran terror and intimidation to ensure “support” from non-Ibo areas never reached the American public because of the press’s quick identification of the Ibos/Biafrans as the “underdog.” I have missionary reports of burnings of villages (as many as 400 homes at a time), mass graves (sixty men, women and children buried alive at Ndiya), and massacre of non-Ibo civilians by Biafran forces. But these things made the Biafrans look more like Nazis than Jews and conflicted with our preconceptions about the situation. They were therefore given no publicity.
http://www.nybooks.com/articles/archives/1970/apr/23/an-exchange-on-biafra/

This report in your link, totally contradicts your position that Ojukwu was against secession. even those who served in his cabinet like Uwechue, were aware of Ojukwu's plans. If he was against secession like you claim, why were those who expressed their dislike of secession, locked up under Ojukwu's regime?

Finally, Uwechue never hid his feelings about how the war was prosecuted. Kindly read his comments below:

Said a former Secretary in the Biafra Government, Raph Uwechue, "It is sad but instructive irony that Lieutenant Colonel Odumegwu Ojukwu, one of Africa's one‐time most brilliant political promises, was the man that led his own people with such a lack of ingenuity into what was clearly a foreseeable disaster." The tragedy was built on Ojukwu's inflexibility and the resultant inability to effect compromise on the political side. He fueled the disaster with his ambition, desire and ability to control the situation in Biafra. Ojukwu was fighting a war within the Civil War, as he struggled to keep and consolidate his position of leadership. And the tragedy was prolonged and insured by the divisive actions Ojukwu used to maintain his position of power.
https://maxsiollun./2011/01/03/quick-kill-in-slow-motion-the-nigerian-civil-war/

PassingShot:
Funny you. Na Yoruba say make you go fight war?

no person will eat human flesh and be able to think in right direction. They realy depend on yorubas to win that biafa riot they call war.

Cjrane2:
[size=15pt]The indomitable Col. Joseph " Hannibal" Achuzia
Commander: Biafran Special "Operations" Forces
Even your adversary Col. Murtala Mohammed respected you[/size]

this their red cap is alwaye funny to me, so na the cap wa them go use rule us be that.

Cjrane2:
[size=15pt]The indomitable Col. Joseph " Hannibal" Achuzia
Commander: Biafran Special "Operations" Forces
Even your adversary Col. Murtala Mohammed respected you[/size]

this their red cap is alwaye funny to me, so na the cap wa them go use rule us be that.

.

laudate:
Sorry, they were stooges. Ojukwu still retained the right to hire and fire them at will. Afterall, he appointed them.

Secondly, Ojukwu was NOT against secession. He rejected all calls for a resolution of the problem, and insisted on going ahead with the war. Your link has just opened up and I read the source . But going further down, there are a lot of instructive comments made by other scholars in that article.
,
Kindly see one of those comments below:

This report totally contradicts your position that Ojukwu was against secession. even those who8 served in his cabinet like Uwechuewere aware of Ojukwu's plans. If he was against secession like you claim, why were those who expressed their dislike of seccession, locked up under Ojukwu's regime?

The comment you quoted was exactly the accusations against Biafra that were demolished and the guy you quoted above had no replies for the knock out blows Mr Diamond provided as rebuttals, which I had already highlighted on this thread before. Lol! It was an earlier comment that was so met with hard facts that the dude making the points ran away with his tail between his legs,

Why are you stooping this low as to suggest that comment was made at the end of that review, when you know it was made at the beginning and was soundly dealth with. Just how deep is treachery embedded in the Yoruba DNA?


of all the accusations against Biafra by the Nigerian side of killing the minorities, non had any evidence to back it up, nor could they be substantiated, No family members of the alleged people murdered by Biafra was found, no names of the Biafra unit or their commanding officer responsibile for that was found,nothing ! just another Odua-Arewa propaganda.

chuna1985:
Yoruba congress.

you need job.

disumusa:
you need job.

Lmao.

I can employ u.

Isn't it Ironic that the people who massacred Easterners while shouting "Araba" ( division/secession) are same people accusing Ojukwu of championing secession.

The plan was to massacre as many Easterners as possible and then declare Odua-Arewa republic, even Ojukwu pleaded with Ndiigbo after the first massacre to go back to the North, after northern leaders gave Ojukwu assurance of their safety, yet the demons hell bent on taking as much pound of flesh before doing Araba( Secession) still went on a second round of massacre.

Only to start singing "one Nigeria" the moment they learnt of the potentials of the Eastern oil wealth.

Ndi ara!

chuna1985:
Wen Gowon failed to adhere to d Aburi accord, west n east agreed to adhere to a clause ind aburri accord which was to declare independence where east forms a state, west forms theirs n allow north to be on their own

Ojukwu met wit the yoruba congress n dis agreement to declare independence was agreed.

Ojukwu went home n declared biafra n den the s waste refuse to declare d republic they so much loved...


S waste na sabotage @ all levels.

At what location did Ojukwu met Yoruba congress ? Ojukwu never left the east for anywhere after Aburi until he flee as a cowardly clown.
You ibos like to make up lies to thwart history in order to bouy yourselves up for nothing. Your version is a new lie never heard before.
The latest of your lies is the title of this thread. If ibos did not surrender, then it means they were conquered. But what was the content of the document of surrender ?
Col Achuzia is about to depart to the great beyond and has to drop a
lie like Achebe to create further controversies.
Igbos are a nation of lie fabricators.

chuna1985:
Wen Gowon failed to adhere to d Aburi accord, west n east agreed to adhere to a clause ind aburri accord which was to declare independence where east forms a state, west forms theirs n allow north to be on their own.

Ojukwu met wit the yoruba congress n dis agreement to declare independence was agreed.

Ojukwu went home n declared biafra n den the s waste refuse to declare d republic they so much loved...

S waste na sabotage @ all levels.

wha is yoruba congress. These ibo can lie, the same way they claim ploting war with awolowo who was in prison,who did not know when ojuku start his riot called biafra.

Omambala1:
Yes! My Daddy told me so. Biafrans never surrendered

na true the war self is still on till now.

Omambala1:
Yes! My Daddy told me so. Biafrans never surrendered

na true the war self is still on till now.

Mckennedy:
on aburi we stand..God bless Biafra

when you fall, you will leave the place.

chuna1985:
Lmao.
I can employ u.

am not a trader ican't sell otapiapia at ariara market.

Even at the point of death this old man couldn't refrain from telling lies.

debetmx:
When ibo people occupied all juicy positions in Nigeria during the first Republic, Nigeria was not a fraud?
When ibo officers were killing Yoruba and Northern Officers, Nigeria was not a fraud?
When an ibo fraudulently became Supreme Commander, Nigeria was not a fraud?
When he promulgated a unitary system of Government to favour ibo people, Nigeria was not a fraud?

The Eastern consultative assembly was Ojukwu's stooge unless they were going to be locked up in prison like he did to Lt. Colonel Hilary Njoku who was his senior..

Nigeria was a fraud when it was created in 1914 is and has remained so to this day. By the way, Hilary Njoku may have been Ojukwus senior but Ojukwu never locked him up in jail, he was kept under house arrest in his village.

pazienza:
The comment you quoted was exactly the accusations against Biafra that were demolished and the guy you quoted above had no replies for the knock out blows Mr Diamond provided as rebuttals, which I had already highlighted on this thread before. Lol!
Why are you stooping this low?

The accusation of against Biafra by the Nigerian. side of killing the minorities, non had any evidence to back it up, nor could they be substantiated, No family members of the alleged people murdered by Biafra was found, nothing just another Odua-Arewa propaganda.

In Diamond's rebuttals he did not allege that the section pertaining to 'secession' which I quoted, was false. Diamond's response to the scholars touched on other areas, and his response was highly defensive as he only sought to justify his own perspective on the war. You are the only one who saw that he 'demolished' their statements. Others like me, do not share that view.

Diamond's responses sounded as if he was a mouthpiece of the Eastern regional government or Ojukwu's cabinet. It lacked intellectual rigour, was heavily one-sided and did not reflect the perspective of non-Igbo minorities in Biafra, which was part of the reasons why the scholars took him to task. The issue about crimes committed against non-Igbo by Biafra soldiers was suppressed by the Gowon administration, in the light of its "No Victor, No vanquished" programme, because it wanted the wounds of the war to heal.

For example, Justice Ighodaro's panel set up to examine the treatment meted out to non-Igbo civilians in the old Mid-West during the Biafran invasion, had its report quashed by Brig-Gen. Samuel Ogbemudia the former Military Governor of the region who felt it could rekindle resentment against the Igbo civilians in that area, after the war.

What those scholars merely did with respect to Diamond's book, was simply to review his work. The scholars were Norman Thomas Uphoff, Department of Political Science, University of California, Berkeley USA; Sara S. Berry of Bloomington, Indiana, and George A. Elbert of New York City. The reason why the 3 scholars who critiqued Diamond's book did not respond to his defensive comments, is not reported, so jumping to conclusions as you have done, is not advisable.

Diamond's book cannot be taken as the sole authority on the civil war, as many scholars both abroad and locally, have written on it and all their works must be read in proper context.

Gen. Yakubu Gowon on his own part, gave reasons as to why a plebiscite was not feasible. Kindly see the excerpts from his speech.

Speech by Major-General Yakubu Gowon Declaring a Twelve State Structure for Nigeria – May 1967 -

COUNTRYMEN, as you are all aware Nigeria has been immersed in an extremely grave crisis for almost eighteen months. We have now reached a most critical phase, where what is at stake is the very survival of Nigeria as one political and economic unit.

The whole world is witness to the continued defiance of federal authority by the Government of the Eastern Region, the disruption of the Railway, the Coal Corporation, the normal operations of the Nigerian Ports Authority, the interference with the flight schedules of the Nigeria Airways and other illegal acts by the Eastern Region Government, culminating in the edicts promulgated last month by that Government purporting to seize all Federal Statutory Corporations and Federal revenues collected in the East....

When the tragic events of 15th January, 1966 occurred, the country acquiesced in the installation of a Military Regime only because it desired that order and discipline should be restored in he conduct of the affairs of this country, that swift reforms will be introduced to produce just and honest Government, to usher in stability and ensure fair treatment of all citizens in every part of the country.

The citizens of this country have not given the Military Regime any mandate to divide up the country into sovereign states and to plunge them into bloody disaster.

State of emergency
As I have warned before, my duty is clear-faced with this final choice between action to save Nigeria, and acquiescence in secession and disintegration...

I have referred earlier to some illegal acts of the Eastern Region Government.

You all know that about one third of the entire falling stock of the Nigerian Railways, including 115 oil-tankers, have been detained, and that the services on the Eastern District of the Nigerian railways have been completely disrupted for many months. You are also aware of the fact that they have disrupted the direct movement of oil products from the refinery near Port Harcourt to the Northern Region. They have hindered the transit of goods to neighbouring countries, and have even seized goods belonging to foreign countries.

These acts have flagrantly violated normal international practice and disturbed friendly relations with our neighbours. That refinery is owned jointly by the Federal Government and Regional governments. Illegally, since last year, the Authorities at Enugu have interfered with the flight routes of the Nigeria Airways. Only recently they committed the barbaric crime of hijacking a plane bound for Lagos from Benin...

They have placed a ban on the residence of non-Easterners in the Eastern Region - an action which is against the Constitution and the fundamental provisions of our laws. They have continuously on the Press and radio incited the people of Eastern Region to hatred of other Nigerian peoples, and they have indulged in the crudest abuse of members of the Supreme Military Council, especially myself. Despite all these, I have spared no effort to conciliate the East in recognition of their understandable grievances and fears since the tragic incidents of 1966.

To this end I agreed with my other colleagues on the Supreme Military Council to the promulgation of the Decree No. 8 which completely decentralized the government of this country, and even went further than the Republican Constitution as it existed before 15th January, 1966. But what has been the response of the Eastern Region Government? Complete rejection of Decree No. 8 and insistence on its separate existence as a sovereign unit.

Only recently, a group of distinguished citizens formed themselves into the National Conciliation Committee. They submitted recommendations aimed at reducing tension. These included the reciprocal abrogation of economic measures taken by the Federal Military government and the seizure of Federal Statutory Corporations and Federal revenue by the Eastern Government.
These reciprocal actions were to be taken within one week that is by 25th May, 1967.

It is on record that I accepted the recommendations and issued instructions effective from Tuesday, May 23. Indeed I now understand that certain vehicles of the Posts and Telegraphs Department which went to the East in resumption of services have been illegally detained in the Region.

The response of the East has been completely negative, and they have continued their propaganda and stage-managed demonstrations for “independence.”

Fellow citizens, I recognise however that the problem of Nigeria extends beyond the present misguided actions of the Eastern Region Government. My duty is to all citizens. I propose to treat all sections of the country with equality. The main obstacle to future stability in this country is the present structural imbalance in the Nigerian Federation.

Even Decree No. 8 or Confederation or Loose Association will never survive if any one section of the country is in a position to hold the others to ransom. This is why the item in the political and administrative programme adopted by the Supreme Military Council last month is the creation of states as a basis for stability. This must be done first so as to remove the fear of domination....

Petitions from minority areas in the East which have been subjected to violent intimidation by the Eastern Military Government have been widely publicized. While the present circumstances regrettably do not allow for consultations through plebiscites, I am satisfied that the creation of new states as the only possible basis for stability and equality is the overwhelming desire of vast majority of Nigerians...

-- See more at: http://www.vanguardngr.com/2010/09/speech-by-major-general-yakubu-gowon-declaring-a-twelve-state-structure-for-nigeria-may-1967/#sthash.z81or4oa.dpuf

pazienza:
Why are you stooping this low as to suggest that comment was made at the end of that review, when you know it was made at the beginning and was soundly dealth with. Just how deep is treachery embedded in the Yoruba DNA?

Unfortunately for you, I am NOT Yoruba! You keep jumping to weird conclusions. Out of every thing that was stated, you had to jump on this trivial issue of whether the comment was made at the 'beginning', or the 'end??' Chai! How shallow!

Read my comment again! I did not say it was made at the end. What I said was "going further down....". Does this mean it was made at the end?? I used this phrase because the section I quoted came after the first 2 scholars had made their submission, and the page opened in a different tab, thus splitting it into 2 parts. Kindly note that the review came after the book had been published, and not before!

Secondly, I did not see Diamond's response initially as the page did not open up in a single view, until much later on my browser. By then, my response to your earlier comment has been submitted.

You can split all the hairs you want about this issue. To tell the truth, your revisionist attempts are really quite amusing.

laudate:
Sorry, they were stooges. Ojukwu still retained the right to hire and fire them at will. Afterall, he appointed them.

Secondly, Ojukwu was NOT against secession. He rejected all calls for a resolution of the problem, and insisted on going ahead with the war. Your link has just opened up and I read the source . But going further down, there are a lot of instructive comments made by other scholars in that article.

Kindly see one of those comments below:

This report in your link, totally contradicts your position that Ojukwu was against secession. even those who served in his cabinet like Uwechue, were aware of Ojukwu's plans. If he was against secession like you claim, why were those who expressed their dislike of secession, locked up under Ojukwu's regime?

Finally, Uwechue never hid his feelings about how the war was prosecuted. Kindly read his comments below:

Said a former Secretary in the Biafra Government, Raph Uwechue, "It is sad but instructive irony that Lieutenant Colonel Odumegwu Ojukwu, one of Africa's one‐time most brilliant political promises, was the man that led his own people with such a lack of ingenuity into what was clearly a foreseeable disaster." The tragedy was built on Ojukwu's inflexibility and the resultant inability to effect compromise on the political side. He fueled the disaster with his ambition, desire and ability to control the situation in Biafra. Ojukwu was fighting a war within the Civil War, as he struggled to keep and consolidate his position of leadership. And the tragedy was prolonged and insured by the divisive actions Ojukwu used to maintain his position of power.

The bolded would have inform you to check the veracity of sources and even the mental balance of the author before making fool of yourself in the public. It is safe to say that Raph Uwechue was never a secretary in the Biafran government. The man could have been in position other than what you want us to believe.

Ayus34:
U lied and u re still forming historian giant.....I can give u my add to come and get the real video tape of the aburi meeting,not some useless stories some pompous criminals tried to rewrite to suit the empty ego.....and u will be ashamed of urself.....yoruba and ibo never at anytime agreed to declare separation....and what awo said was that if Gowon allow the ibos to go,then yoruba will do leave....after all it was ur azikwe that preffered the one Nigeria,and also ur aguiyi ironsi formed this useless unitary system of govt,where monkey dey work baboon they shop,just to suit his pride of ruling all Nigeria,so I don't know why on earth will be calling on yoruba to any agreement not to talk of support, when ur fore fathers prefer to wine and dine with the north......is this not hilarious?

There is no need to be hostile. We are all having a civilised discussion, here. I do wish the Yoruba intellectuals would come on board to respond to all these comments being made by the biafran 'side'.

Kindly read this execrpt from another article:

....... Also, the records indicate that after the 1959 elections, Awolowo conceded the office of prime minister to Azikiwe, which he strangely rejected, preferring “the ornamental post of governor”.

National legal counsel to Egbe Omo Yoruba USA & Canada, Ayo Turton Esq., states in his article (Biafra) There Was Never A Country posted Sunday, 11th October, 2012 ( http://www.nigeriavillagesquare.com ):

“It is on record that Chief Awolowo approached Dr. Azikiwe during the 1959 elections when no clear leader emerged to give Action Group votes to him so that Azikiwe can become the Prime Minister and he Awolowo the Finance Minister, but Zik turned him down and traded Prime Minister ship for ceremonial presidency with Tafawa Balewa thereby relegated himself to commissioning federal toilets and primary schools.”

American scholar, Dr. Paden, concurs in his book, ibid, that for his rejection of Awo’s offer:

“Zik could have been head of the federal government with Awo running the finance ministry in 1959 and Nigeria might have lived happily thereafter as a stable democracy and beacon of hope for Black Africa.”

Earlier, on 16th November 1960, Azikiwe, who "was by far the most formally educated, the most urbane and internationalized among the three independence leaders", and who was addressed as ‘Sir Benjamin’ by the opposition press, declared happily and contentedly during his inauguration as Governor-General, quoting the poem Be the Best of Whatever You Are by American poet, short story writer and associate editor of Chicago’s trade paper American Lumberman, Douglas Malloch (1877-1938), well known as Lumberman’s poet:

“I can say without hesitation that I have no personal ambition in partisan politics. This explains why I have been able to play the role of a prisoner in a gilded cage with personal equanimity. My stiffest earthly assignment is ended and my major life’s work is done. My country is now free and I have been honored to be its first indigenous head of state. What more could one desire in life?”

Ogunsanwo, who (apart from recognizing that the “great Zik of Africa” remained bitter about his deprivation of the premiership of the West by Awolowo) couldn’t fathom how “any practical politician” could have declined such “an offer to be the executive head of government of his country”, writes ibid (pg. xix):

“But, in my opinion, his stock diminished when as ceremonial president, he reversed his stand and reappointed Balewa as prime minister after the botched general election of 1964. If he thought the ceremonial presidency entitled him to any leverage or fancied himself as a latter-day King George III of eighteen century England, he was proved wrong in December 1964. He was a Commander-in-Chief who could neither instruct the army nor the police. As a head of state, he could not dismiss his prime minister from office that year. “I would rather resign,” he said, “than call on any person to form a government.” But his nerve eventually failed him.”

Ikemba Odumegwu-Ojukwu, who grew more tactful in his dealings with political opponents as he got older, disagreed largely with Azikiwe’s policies as a politician because, as he put it, they “left the Igbo in the lurch”. He wrote in Because I am Involved, (pp.158 & 159):

“Zik did not set out to lead the Igbos and has not in fact led the Igbos. He has been first and foremost a Nigerian who aspired to a Nigerian leadership. When the British withdrew in 1960, Nigeria was left in the hands of three great men. Of the three, Zik could be said to have been the dreamer whilst the others were hard-headed realists. Zik believed, worked for and made sacrifices for a Nigeria that had not come into existence- the ideal increasingly unattainable, they found themselves deflated and deprived vis-à-vis the realists, who from the beginning, ensured for their group a share of whatever was going.”

Paden also informs: “Some commentators have continued to regale in the hackneyed theory that Zik was ‘detribalized’ while Awo was a ‘tribalist’. Zik was the author of this mudslinging as a revenge for losing out in Ibadan in 1952. What was his motive in seeking to be the premier of a region populated 90 per cent by the Yoruba? And what is wrong with being ‘tribal’ in looking after your people, after all, everyone must belong to an ethnic group! Which leader, including Zik, would rather champion the interests of another ethnic group at the expense of his?

The Yoruba have a saying: 'which father would rather put beautiful beads on the waist of another child instead of that of his own daughter?'" [Ọmọ ẹni ò ní ṣe ìdí bẹ̀bẹ̀rẹ̀ kí á fi ìlẹ̀kẹ̀ sí ìdí ọmọ ẹlòmíràn]. http://www.thenigerianvoice.com/news/184720/1/brewing-crisis.html

Can someone please translate the statement made in Yoruba at the end of this article?? Am curious to know what it means in a literal sense.

zendy:
Nigeria was a fraud when it was created in 1914 is and has remained so to this day. By the way, Hilary Njoku may have been Ojukwus senior but Ojukwu never locked him up in jail, he was kept under house arrest in his village.

Interesting! Why was he locked up in the first place? And why was Madiebo appointed in his stead?

Duru1:
The bolded would have inform you to check the veracity of sources and even the mental balance of the author before making fool of yourself in the public. It is safe to say that Raph Uwechue was never a secretary in the Biafran government. The man could have been in position other than what you want us to believe.

Why the name calling? Others have quoted a variety of sources in their bid to support their stance. Did you ask any of them to check the veracity of those sources, or the mental balance of the author? Is there a standard that can be applied through the internet for checking the mental balance of an author? Kindly share it with us, as we are not psychiatrists or clinical psychologists!

I was not the originator of the comment that Uwechue was a secretary in the Biafran cabinet. The source where that statement was made, was clearly cited in my last post. Another source claims that Ralph Uwechue was the Biafra Representative in France. http://www./Biafra%20facts%201967.htm

However, what is obvious is that Ralph Uwechue played key roles in Biafra, and interacted with Ojukwu at close quarters. Apart from this, the comment that Uwechue made about Ojukwu, was lifted from his own book titled "Reflections on the Nigerian Civil War: Facing the Future": a 244 page paperback published by Trafford Publishing, which was quoted directly by the author. It is available on Amazon.

laudate:
Interesting! Why was he locked up in the first place? And why was Madiebo appointed in his stead?

When Biafra was declared, Ojukwu appointed as Biafran Army Boss. However, soon after this, friction started between Ojukwu and Njoku over what Njkoku believed to be Ojukwus "high-handedness". Njoku and Ojukwu simply did not get along. Njkoku resigned, however, in the military, it can be an act of treason for a military officer to resign an appointment without authorisation. Ojukwu then ordered Njoku's house arrest where Njoku stayed until the end of the war.

laudate:
In Diamond's rebuttals he did not allege that the section pertaining to 'secession' which I quoted, was false. Diamond's response to the scholars touched on other areas, and his response was highly defensive as he only sought to justify his own perspective on the war. You are the only one who saw that he 'demolished' their statements. Others like me, do not share that view.

Diamond's responses sounded as if he was a mouthpiece of the Eastern regional government or Ojukwu's cabinet. It lacked intellectual rigour, was heavily one-sided and did not reflect the perspective of non-Igbo minorities in Biafra, which was part of the reasons why the scholars took him to task. The issue about crimes committed against non-Igbo by Biafra soldiers was suppressed by the Gowon administration, in the light of its "No Victor, No vanquished" programme, because it wanted the wounds of the war to heal.

For example, Justice Ighodaro's panel set up to examine the treatment meted out to non-Igbo civilians in the old Mid-West during the Biafran invasion, had its report quashed by Brig-Gen. Samuel Ogbemudia the former Military Governor of the region who felt it could rekindle resentment against the Igbo civilians in that area, after the war.

What those scholars merely did with respect to Diamond's book, was simply to review his work. The scholars were Norman Thomas Uphoff, Department of Political Science, University of California, Berkeley USA; Sara S. Berry of Bloomington, Indiana, and George A. Elbert of New York City. The reason why the 3 scholars who critiqued Diamond's book did not respond to his defensive comments, is not reported, so jumping to conclusions as you have done, is not advisable.

Diamond's book cannot be taken as the sole authority on the civil war, as many scholars both abroad and locally, have written on it and all their works must be read in proper context.

Gen. Yakubu Gowon on his own part, gave reasons as to why a plebiscite was not feasible. Kindly see the excerpts from his speech.

This is really a very poor showing from you. I was expecting better. You mean Gowon expected Biafra to allow Nigeria free usage of her oil wealth, airlines, railways? Gowon is a not serious.

Gowon continually accused Biafrans of killing the minorities, but we all knew who shot at anything that moved near PH, minority dominated areas. Neither Gowon or NA could provide the names of the Biafrans unit, their commanders or even survivals/ relatives of the so called Biafra massacre of Eastern minorities, even when Nigerians are more equipped to do that.
Biafra that was less equipped could provide names of the Nigerian Army unit, their commanders and the surviving victims/ relatives of dead victims of Nigerian genocide on Biafra.

Diamond provided raw facts, Norman and Sara are not Nigerians with "I no go lose" altitude, they know when the bow to superior arguments.

Diamond countered all Norman and Sara lies, which I am sure they must have gotten from the Odua-Arewa propaganda machine.


No crime by the Biafrans against non Igbos, atleast no organized crime, if it ever happened, then it must be of individual soldiers and not as a central policy of Biafra, that is why Nigeria has no name of the commanding Biafran officer or unit involved in the phantom Biafran crime, as was the case with Nigeria, where genocide against Ndiigbo was a national policy broadcasted in the radio stations in the North and all over the country.

Ogbemudia is just a regular Nigerian, allergic to the truth, he is not clean and was probably covering his own ass. The real victims of genocides want the issue revisited.

[b] "Federal troops, killed, or stood by while mobs killed, more than 5000 Ibos in Warri, Sapele, Agbor, "New York Times, 10th January, 1968. "It’s (mass starvation) is a legitimate aspect of war, " Anthony Enahoro, Nigerian Commissioner for Information at a press conference in (New York, July 1968) "Starvation is a legitimate weapon of war, and we have every intention of using it against the rebels, "Mr Alison Ayida, Head of Nigerian Delegation, Niamey Peace Talks, Republic of Niger, July 1968) " The Igbos must be considerably reduced in number" (Lagos Policeman quoted in New York Review, 21 December, 1967) ''One word now describes the policy of the Nigerian military government towards secessionist Biafra: genocide. It is ugly and extreme but it is the only word which fits Nigeria's decision to stop the International Committee of the red Cross, and other relief agencies, from flying food to Biafra" Washington Post (editorial) July 2, 1969). [/b]

[b] ''In some areas outside the East, Igbos were killed
by local people with at least the acquiescence of
the federal forces, 1000 Igbo civilians perished in
Benin in this way"- (Max Edward - Reporter on the
ground-New York Review, 21 December 1967).
''After federal forces take over of Benin, troops
killed about 500 Igbo civilians after a house-to-
house search with the aid of willing
locals" (Washington Morning Post, 27 September,
1967).
"The greatest single massacre occurred in the Igbo
town of Asaba where 700 Igbo male were lined up
and shot as terrified women/children were forced
to watch"
(London Observer, 21 January, 1968)
"Federal troops, killed, or stood by while mobs
killed, more than 5000 Ibos in Wari, Sapele,
Agbor" (New York Times, 10th January, 1968).
"There has been genocide on the occasion of the
1966 massacres, the region between the towns of
Benin and Asaba where only widows and orphans
remain, federal troops having, for unknown
reasons, massacred all the men" - (Paris Le
Monde, 5th April, 1968). [/b]


Perhaps, we now see why some people from that side of Igboland are currently having identity crisis.
The word Igbo became synonymous to death to them in that era. They( Nigerians psychologically molested these people). Their parents out of survival instinct, ingrained it in them to chose life instead of death( Igbo).

[b] "In Calabar, federal forces shot at least 1000 and perhaps 2000 Igbos, most of them civilians" (New York Times, 18th January, 1968). "Bestialities and indignities of all kinds were visited on Biafrans in 1966. In Ikeja Barracks (Western Nigeria) Biafrans were forcibly fed on a mixture of human urine and faeces. In Northern Nigeria numerous Biafran house-wives and nursing mothers were violated before their husbands and children. Young girls were abducted from their homes, working places and schools and forced into intimate intercourse with sick, demented and leprous men'' (Mr. Eric Spiff (German War correspondence Eyewitness, 1967). "There has been genocide, for example on the occasion of the 1966 massacres , Two areas have suffered badly [from the fighting]. Firstly the region between the towns of Benin and Asaba where only widows and orphans remain, Federal troops having for unknown reasons massacred all the men. According to eyewitnesses of that massacre the Nigerian commander ordered the execution of every Ibo male over the age of ten years" (Monsignor Georges, sent down on a fact- finding mission by His holiness the Pope reporting his finding in Vatican Rome, Le Monde, French Evening newspaper, April 5, 1968). [/b]

pazienza:
This is really a very poor showing from you. I was expecting better. You mean Gowon expected Biafra to allow Nigeria free usage of her oil wealth, airlines, railways? Gowon is a not serious.

Gowon continually accused Biafrans of killing the minorities, but we all knew who shot at anything that moved near PH, minority dominated areas. Neither Gowon or NA could provide the names of the Biafrans unit, their commanders or even survivals/ relatives of the so called Biafra massacre of Eastern minorities, even when Nigerians are more equipped to do that.
Biafra that was less equipped could provide names of the Nigerian Army unit, their commanders and the surviving victims/ relatives of dead victims of Nigerian genocide on Biafra.

Diamond provided raw facts, Norman and Sara are not Nigerians with "I no go lose" altitude, they know when the bow to superior arguments.

Diamond countered all Norman and Sara lies, which I am sure they must have gotten from the Odua-Arewa propaganda machine.


No crime by the Biafrans against non Igbos, atleast no organized crime, if it ever happened, then it must be of individual soldiers and not as a central policy of Biafra, that is why Nigeria has no name of the commanding Biafran officer or unit involved in the phantom Biafran crime, as was the case with Nigeria, where genocide against Ndiigbo was a national policy broadcasted in the radio stations in the North and all over the country.

Ogbemudia is just a regular Nigerian, allergic to the truth, he is not clean and was probably covering his own ass. The real victims of genocides want the issue revisited.

And this is really a pathetic showing from you! Why am I not surprised? You have the same mentality that was prevalent in the old Biafra - the type that refuses to see the truth, even when it hits them in the face.

Initially, you claimed there was no crime against the non-Igbos. Later you said there "was no organised crime." And then you grasped at straws, claiming 'if if it ever happened, then it must be of individual soldiers..." What contradiction! So why was the Justice Ighodaro panel set up in the old Mid-West and why did Ogbemudia bury the report of the commission? Was there a crime or not? No one is asking if it was 'organised,' or not!

Ogbemudia's father had Ika blood and his wife was Igbo. Some people have claimed that he felt it would incriminate the kinsmen of his extended family. So he used the Gowon admonition of "No Victor, No Vanquished" to suppress that report. That was why the report did not see the light of day. Period.

You claim Dimond produced raw facts. Oh, I agree that he produced a bunch of one-sided 'facts', that were heavily biased and skewed. The scholars called him out on it. But you have refused to see that. You only see things that don't exist. Like when you alleged I was Yoruba. I had to laugh out loud, when I read that one.

You claim the scholars bowed to superior argument. You like falsehood and relish in fake assumptions, sha! The scholars I mentioned did not publish any lie. Even Diamond himself did NOT accuse them of lying. If they had lied, you can be sure that Diamond or his publishers would have either sued them or have made mention of that fact. You are the one claiming they lied. How sad. Keep on twisting the truth to suit your warped view.

Finally, you said: "You mean Gowon expected Biafra to allow Nigeria free usage of her oil wealth, airlines, railways? Gowon is a not serious." Haba! I had to leave this part for the last, because this comment was too hilarious. In 1967, the airline and railways was being run with money jointly contributed from the taxes of all the regions, not just the East. Was it Ojukwu that set up the Nigeria Airways or the Nigerian railways?

Go back into history. Both institutions were set up by the British govt with wealth contributed by ALL the regions of Nigeria, not just the East.

The Nigerian Railway Corporation was established in 1898, when the first railroad in Nigeria was constructed by the British colonial government. On October 3, 1912 the Lagos Government Railway and the Baro-Kano Railway were amalgamated, starting nationwide rail service under the name Government Department of Railways. With the passing of the Nigerian Railway Corporation Act of 1955, the company's name was changed as well as the exclusive legal right to construct and operate rail service in Nigeria. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nigerian_Railway_Corporation

Nigeria Airways on the other hand, actually started in Kano. In 1935, the operations of the RAF were replaced by those of the Imperial Airways that flew regular airmail and passengers from London to Nigeria. These services thus pioneered commercial international operations in Nigeria, although it was not until 1936 that commercial aviation actually came to Nigeria.

The Imperial Airways, the forerunner of the British Overseas Airways Corporation (BOAC), operated large four-engined aeroplanes, known as the Hannibal class or the Handley, on the Nile route from Cairo to Kisumu, Uganda. Towards the end of 1936, a once-weekly service was introduced and another route, Khartoum–Kano–Lagos, flight, which took seven days, was operated with a relatively small four-engined aircraft De Havilland 86 (one of the DH 86's well-known passengers was Sir Bernard Bourdillon, who flew on the first ever commercial flight from Lagos).... In August 1958 the Nigerian government in partnership with BOAC and Elder Dempster lines formed the West African Airways Corporation (Nigeria)Limited WAAC (which would later metamorphose into today's Nigeria Airways). This single, historic move heralded the genesis of the airline industry in Nigeria. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Airports_Authority_of_Nigeria

So why would a man solely commandeer something that was jointly built with the wealth of others, and not just his own? Did he pay the rest of the other Nigerian regions for the money they contributed in setting up the airways and railways? There is a name for that kind of behaviour. I will leave others to fill in the blanks.

laudate:
Sorry, they were stooges. Ojukwu still retained the right to hire and fire them at will. Afterall, he appointed them.

Secondly, Ojukwu was NOT against secession. He rejected all calls for a resolution of the problem, and insisted on going ahead with the war. Your link has just opened up and I read the source . But going further down, there are a lot of instructive comments made by other scholars in that article.

Kindly see one of those comments below:

This report in your link, totally contradicts your position that Ojukwu was against secession. even those who served in his cabinet like Uwechue, were aware of Ojukwu's plans. If he was against secession like you claim, why were those who expressed their dislike of secession, locked up under Ojukwu's regime?

Finally, Uwechue never hid his feelings about how the war was prosecuted. Kindly read his comments below:

Thanks for whooping his azz with his own link