Daniel Orr's Blog, page 114

December 5, 1983 – Military rule ends in Argentina

On December 5, 1983, military junta rule by the National Reorganization Process (Spanish: Proceso de Reorganización Nacional) ended in Argentina. A succession of juntas had ruled with authoritarian powers since 1976 after the military seized power by ousting President Isabel Peron (wife of former President Juan Peron) in a coup.

(Taken from Dirty War – Wars of the 20th Century – Volume 1)

The military’s stated reason for the Peron coup was to prevent the communist take-over of the country.  Thereafter, a military junta came to power.  Argentina’s legislature was abolished, while the judicial courts were restructured to suit the new
militarized system.  The academic and intelligentsia were suppressed, as were labor and peoples’ assemblies.  The military government instituted harsh
measures to stamp out communist and leftist elements.  Also targeted by the military were opposition politicians, journalists, writers, labor and student leaders, including their supporters and sympathizers.

Argentina and nearby countries. During the Dirty War, the Argentine military government used “dirty” methods in its anti-insurgency campaign to stamp out leftist and perceived communist elements in the country.

The military operated with impunity, arbitrarily subjecting their suspected enemies to arrests, interrogations, tortures, and executions.  One infamous method of execution was the “death flight”, where prisoners were drugged, stripped naked, and held down with weights on their feet, and then boarded onto a plane and later thrown out into the Atlantic Ocean.  Since death flights and other forms of executions made certain that the bodies would not be found, the victims were said to have disappeared, striking great fear among the people.  Another atrocity was allowing captured pregnant women to give birth and then killing them, with their babies given to the care of and adopted by military or right-leaning couples.  The military and Triple A death squads carried out these operations clandestinely during the Dirty War.

The military government’s anti-insurgency campaign was so fierce, sustained, and effective that by 1977, the leftist and communist groups had practically ceased to exist.  Hundreds of rebels, who had escaped to the nearby countries of Brazil, Uruguay, Paraguay, Bolivia, and Chile, were arrested and returned to Argentina.  The United States provided technical assistance to the integrated intelligence network of these countries within the
scope of its larger struggle against communism in the Cold War.

The Argentinean government continued its draconian rule even after it had stamped out the insurgency.  The Dirty War caused some 9,000 confirmed and up to 30,000 unconfirmed victims from murders and forced disappearances.  By 1982, however, the military’s anti-insurgency campaign, which had found wide popular support initially, was being criticized by the people because of high-level government corruption and a floundering national economy.

Seeking to revitalize its flagging image, the military government launched an invasion of the British-controlled Falkland Islands in an attempt to stir up nationalist sentiments and thereby regain the Argentinean people’s support.  The Argentinean forces briefly gained control of the islands.  A British naval task force soon arrived, however, and recaptured the Falkland Islands, driving away and inflicting heavy casualties on the Argentinean forces.

Consequently, Argentina’s military government
collapsed, ending the country’s militarized climate.  Argentina then began to transition to civilian rule under a democratic system.  After the country held general elections in 1983, the new government
that came to power opened a commission to investigate the crimes committed during the Dirty War.  Subsequently, a number of perpetrators were brought to trial and convicted.  Some military units broke out in rebellion in protest of the convictions, forcing the Argentinean government to pass new laws that reduced the military’s liability during the Dirty War.  In 1989, a broad amnesty was given to all
persons who had been involved, indicted, and even convicted of crimes during the Dirty War.

In June 2005, however, the Argentinean Supreme Court overturned the amnesty laws, allowing for the re-opening of criminal lawsuits for Dirty War crimes.  The fates of many persons killed and disappeared, as well as the infants taken from their murdered mothers, remain unsolved and are subject to ongoing investigations.

December 4, 1920 – Russian forces capture the Armenian capital of Yerevan

Armenia was dealt a death blow when Soviet Russia, on the pretext of a border dispute, invaded from Azerbaijan.  On December 4, 1920, Yerevan fell to the Russians, and those parts not yet under Turkish occupation came under their control.  Armenian communists then formed a new government, bringing the country under indirect Soviet political authority.  The Russian invasion of Armenia was part of the Moscow government’s strategy to bring the Caucasus under Soviet Russia, a plan that was achieved when Georgia also was invaded the following year.

(Taken from Turkish War of Independence – Wars of the 20th Century – Volume 3)

Turkish nationalists fought in three fronts: in the east against Armenia, in the south against France and the French Armenian Legion, and in the west against Greece, which was backed by Britain.

Partition of Anatolia as stipulated in the Treaty of Sevres.

Eastern Front

Also known as the Turkish-Armenian War, the eastern front carried over from hostilities in the Caucasus Sector of World War I.  Russian forces had gained control of the Caucasus and northeast Turkey, but withdrew from the region in 1917 following the outbreak of the Russian Revolution.  Later that year, the Ottomans and the Soviet government signed an armistice.

The Eastern front in the Turkish War of Independence.

After the Russians withdrew, the South Caucasus
jurisdictions of Armenia, Georgia, and Azerbaijan formed the short-lived Transcaucasian Democratic Federative Republic in February 1918.  Then after the federation’s dissolution in May 1918, the three members declared separate independences.  Armenia, which in the context of World War I supported the Allied Powers, went to war against the Ottoman Empire.  The nascent Armenian state was dealt a number of defeats from a powerful Ottoman offensive, but survived the war.

At the end of World War I, United States President Woodrow Wilson, in line with his “Fourteen Points” Manifesto regarding the peoples’ right of self-determination, proposed a new, much enlarged Armenian state, subject to certain conditions.  This so-called “Wilsonian Armenia” subsequently
was included in the Treaty of Sevres.  While ethnic Armenians welcomed the proposal as genuinely reflecting historical and geographical Armenian territory, the Turkish “government” in Ankara opposed it on the same grounds that the proposed change would encroach on the Turkish people’s traditional and ancestral homeland.

War Following border skirmishes in June 1920, Armenian troops seized Oltu, a coal-rich town in Georgia.  Turkish forces associated with Kemal’s
government had a strong presence in eastern Turkey.  By contrast, Armenia’s prospects for victory was dependent on Allied support which, however, proved to be limited in supply and weak-hearted, which ultimately decided the outcome in this sector of the
war.

Turkish forces began their offensive on September 13, easily overrunning the towns of Oltu and Peniak.  On September 28, the border town of Sarikamis was taken as well, forcing Armenian forces to retreat to Kars, a fortified city in western Armenia.  On October 24, 1920, Turkish forces entered Armenia and attacked Kars, which was taken after one week of fighting.

The Turks then rapidly advanced to Alexandropol, 280 kilometers away, which also was captured, on November 6.  Yerevan, the Armenian capital, now came under direct threat.  On November 18, 1920, the Armenian government acquiesced to a Turkish ultimatum, and a ceasefire came into effect.  On December 2, 1920, the Armenian and Ankara governments signed the Treaty of Alexandropol,
whereby Armenia ceased its claim to “Wilsonian Armenia” as stipulated in the Treaty of Sevres.  The Alexandropol treaty also forced Armenia to cede Kars
and surrounding regions; in total, some 50% of Armenian territory was lost, i.e. Armenia
retained only one-half of its pre-war borders.

The Armenian state was dealt a death blow when the Soviet Union, on the pretext of a border dispute, invaded from Azerbaijan.  On December 4, 1920, Yerevan fell to the Russians, and those parts not yet under Turkish occupation came under Soviet control.  Armenian communists then formed a new government, bringing the country under indirect Soviet political authority.  The Soviet invasion of Armenia was part of the Moscow government’s strategy to bring the Caucasus under the Soviet Union, a plan that was achieved when Georgia
also was invaded by the Russians the following year.

In the aftermath, the Ankara government and the Soviet Union made peace and fixed the Turkish-Soviet border under two treaties: the Treaty of Moscow (March 16, 1921) and the Treaty of Kars (October 13, 1921); the treaties also ended the war in the eastern sector.

December 3, 1971 – Pakistan launches pre-emptive air strikes against India, starting the Indian-Pakistani War of 1971 and merging it with the Bangladesh War of Independence

India’s involvement in East Pakistan was condemned in West Pakistan, where war sentiment was running high by November 1971.  On November 23, Pakistan declared a state of emergency and deployed large numbers of troops to the East Pakistani and West Pakistani borders with India.  Then on December 3, 1971, Pakistani planes launched air strikes on air bases in India, particularly those in Jammu and Kashmir, Indian Punjab, and Haryana.

Bangladesh War of Independence and Indian-Pakistani War of 1971

The next day, India declared war on Pakistan.  India held a decisive military advantage, which would allow its armed forces to win the war in only 13 days.  India had a 4:1 and 10:1 advantage over West Pakistan and East Pakistan, respectively, in terms of numbers of aircraft, allowing the Indians to gain mastery of the sky by the second day of the war.

India’s objective in the war was to achieve a rapid victory in East Pakistan before the UN imposed a ceasefire, and to hold off a possible Pakistani offensive from West Pakistan.  In turn, Pakistan hoped to hold out in East Pakistan as long as possible, and to attack and make territorial gains in western India, which would allow the Pakistani government to negotiate in a superior position if the war went to mediation.

(Taken from Bangladesh War of Independence and Indian-Pakistani War of 1971 – Wars of the 20th Century – Volume 3)

Background

The Bangladesh War of Independence began as a civilian uprising in East Pakistan that escalated into a civil war between East Pakistan and West Pakistan.  India intervened in the civil war, sparking the Indian-Pakistani War of 1971.  In the aftermath of the two wars, East Pakistan broke away from Pakistan
and formed the new state of Bangladesh.

In 1947, the Indian subcontinent was partitioned (previous article) into two new countries (Map 13): the Hindu-majority India and the nearly exclusive Muslim Pakistan.  Much of India was formed from the
subcontinent’s central and eastern regions, while Pakistan comprised two geographically separate regions that became West Pakistan (located in the northwest) and East Pakistan (located in the southeast).

From its inception, Pakistan experienced a great disparity between West Pakistan and East Pakistan.  The national capital was located in West Pakistan, from where all major political and governmental decisions were made.  Military and foreign policies emanated from there as well.  West Pakistan also held a monopoly on the country’s financial, industrial, and social affairs.  Much of the country’s wealth entered, remained in, and was apportioned to the
West.  These factors resulted in West Pakistan being much wealthier than East Pakistan.  And all this despite East Pakistan having a higher population than West Pakistan.

In the 1960s, East Pakistan called for social and economic reforms and greater regional autonomy, but was ignored by the national government.  Then in 1970, the Amawi League, East Pakistan’s main political party, won a stunning landslide victory in the national elections, but was prevented from taking over the government by the ruling civilian-military coalition regime, which feared that a new civilian government would reduce the military’s influence on the country’s political affairs.

Leaders from East Pakistan and West Pakistan tried to negotiate a solution to the political impasse,
but failed to reach an agreement.  Having been prevented from forming a new government, Mujibur Rahman, East Pakistan’s leader, called on East Pakistanis to carry out acts of civil disobedience.

In Dhaka, the East Pakistani capital, thousands of residents undertook mass demonstrations that
paralyzed commercial, public, and civilian functions.  On March 25, 1971, the Pakistani Army arrested and jailed Mujibur, who then declared while in prison the secession of East Pakistan from Pakistan and the founding of the independent state of Bangladesh.  Mujibur’s supporters aired the declaration of
independence on broadcast radio throughout East Pakistan.

East Pakistanis then organized the Mukti Bahini, a guerilla militia whose ranks were filled by ethnic Bengali soldiers who had defected from the Pakistani Army.  As armed clashes began to break out in Dhaka, the national government sent more troops to East Pakistan.  Much of the fighting took place in April-May 1971, where government forces prevailed, forcing the rebels to flee to the Indian states of West Bengal and Tripura.  The Pakistani Army then turned on the civilian population to weed out nationalists and rebel supporters.  The soldiers targeted all sectors of society – the upper classes of the political,
academic, and business elite, as well as the lower classes consisting of urban and rural workers, farmers, and villagers.  In the wave of violence and suppression that took place, tens of thousands of East Pakistanis were killed, while some ten million civilians fled to the Indian states of West Bengal, Tripura, Assam, Bihar, and Meghalaya.

As East Pakistani refugees flooded into India, the
Indian government called on the United Nations (UN) to intervene, but received no satisfactory response.  As nearly 50% of the refugees were Hindus, to the Indian government, this meant that the causes of the unrest in East Pakistan were religious as well as political.  (During the partition of the Indian subcontinent in 1947, a massive cross-border
migration of Hindus and Muslims had taken place; by the 1970s, however, East Pakistan, still contained a significant 14% Hindu population.)

Since its independence, India had fought two wars against Pakistan and faced the perennial threat of fighting against or being attacked simultaneously from East Pakistan and West Pakistan.  India
therefore saw that the crisis in East Pakistan yielded one benefit – if the threat from East Pakistan was eliminated, India would not have to face the threat of a war on two fronts.  Thus, just two days into the uprising in East Pakistan, India began to secretly
support the independence of Bangladesh.  The Indian Army covertly trained, armed, and funded the East Pakistani rebels, which within a few months, grew to a force of 100,000 fighters.

December 2, 1956 – Cuban Revolution: Fidel Castro and his men arrive at Playa Las Coloradas in southeastern Cuba

On December 2, 1956, Fidel Castro and his men arrived in southeastern Cuba, with their vessel hitting a sandbar close to the mangrove shoreline of Playa
Las Coloradas.  The Cuban military, having recently increased its operations in the region because of the recent M-26-7 attacks, spotted the landing and fired on the Granma.  Fidel Castro and his men made it to shore, but were forced to abandon most of their weapons and supplies still on board the vessel.  While making their way to the Sierra Maestra Mountains,
they were ambushed on December 5 by a large army contingent.  Eventually, less than 20 of the original 82
rebels met up deep in the forested highlands; the survivors included the group’s leaders Fidel and Raul Castro, Guevara, and Camilo Cienfuegos, while most of the rebels had been killed or captured.

In November 1956, Fidel Castro and 81 other rebels set out from Tuxpan, Mexico aboard a decrepit yacht for their nearly 2,000 kilometer trip across the Caribbean Sea bound for south-eastern Cuba.

Fidel Castro soon established his headquarters in the Sierra Maestra, and in the following months, launched attacks against army patrols and isolated outposts, and on government and public infrastructures, thereby gaining control of much of the mountainous region and later expanding the
revolution’s “liberated zones”.  He increased the size of his force by recruiting from nearby villages and from urban volunteers who were drawn to his cause. 
The revolution was boosted greatly by the “escopeteros”, local supporters who served many auxiliary roles: as armed irregulars to the M-26-7
main force, as informants providing the positions and movements of army units, and as porters carrying supplies across the mountains.

(Taken from Cuban Revolution – Wars of the 20th Century – Volume 2)

Background

In March 1952, General Fulgencio Batista seized power in Cuba through a coup d’état.  He then canceled the elections scheduled for June 1952, where he was running for the presidency but trailed in the polls and faced likely defeat.  Having gained power, General Batista established a dictatorship, suppressed the opposition, and suspended the constitution and many civil liberties.  Then in the November 1954 general elections that were boycotted by the political opposition, General Batista won the presidency and thus became Cuba’s official head of state.

President Batista favored a close working relationship with Cuba’s wealthy elite, particularly with American businesses, which had an established, dominating presence in Cuba.  Since the early twentieth century, the United States had maintained political, economic, and military control over Cuba; e.g. during the first few decades of the 1900s, U.S. forces often intervened directly in Cuba by quelling unrest and violence, and restoring political order.

American corporations held a monopoly on the Cuban economy, dominating the production and commercial trade of the island’s main export, sugar, as well as other agricultural products, the mining and petroleum industries, and public utilities.  The United States naturally entered into political, economic, and military alliances with and backed the Cuban government; in the context of the Cold War, successive Cuban governments after World War II were anti-communist and staunchly pro-American.

President Batista expanded the businesses of the American mafia in Cuba, where these criminal organizations built and operated racetracks, casinos, nightclubs, and hotels in Havana with relaxed tax laws provided by the Cuban government.  President Batista amassed a large personal fortune from these transactions, and Havana was transformed into and became internationally known for its red-light district, where gambling, prostitution, and illegal drugs were rampant.  President Batista’s regime was characterized by widespread corruption, as public officials and the police benefitted from bribes from the American crime syndicates as well as from outright embezzlement of government funds.

Cuba did achieve consistently high economic growth under President Batista, but much of the wealth was concentrated in the upper class, and a great divide existed between the small, wealthy elite and the masses of the urban poor and landless
peasants.  (Cuban society also contained a relatively dynamic middle class that included doctors, lawyers, and many other working professionals.)

President Batista was extremely unpopular among the general population, because he had gained power through force and made unequal economic policies.  As a result, Havana (Cuba’s
capital) seethed with discontent, with street demonstrations, protests, and riots occurring frequently.  In response, President Batista deployed security forces to suppress dissenting elements,
particularly those that advocated Marxist ideology.  The government’s secret police regularly carried out extrajudicial executions and forced disappearances, as well as arbitrary arrests, detentions, and tortures. 
Some 20,000 persons were killed or disappeared during the Batista regime.

In 1953, a young lawyer and former student leader named Fidel Castro emerged to lead what ultimately would be the most serious challenge to President Batista.  Castro previously had taken part in the aborted overthrow of the Dominican Republic’s dictator Rafael Trujillo and in the 1948 civil disturbance (known as “Bogotazo”) in Bogota, Colombia before completing his law studies at the University of Havana.  Castro had run as an independent for Congress in the 1952 elections that were cancelled because of Batista’s coup.  Castro was infuriated and began making preparations to overthrow what he declared was the illegitimate Batista regime that had seized power from a democratically elected government.  Fidel organized an armed insurgent group, “The Movement”, whose aim was to overthrow President Batista.  At its peak, “The Movement” would comprise 1,200 members in its civilian and military wings.

December 1, 1944 – Greek Civil War: The Greek government issues a directive requiring resistance groups to disarm and demobilize

By the fall of 1944, the Soviet Army had broken through in Eastern Europe.  To avoid being cut off, in October of that year, the Germans (who, by this time,
were the remaining occupation forces in Greece) retreated north.  With the Germans out of Greece, the British soon arrived in Athens, followed by Prime
Minister Papandreou’s government which began to take over the administrative duties left behind by the fallen collaborationist regime.

One month earlier, the various armed resistance groups had agreed to subordinate their militias under the command of the British Army.  An alliance of Greek communist and leftist resistance groups called EAM-ELAS controlled much of Greece but wanted
to preserve Allied unity and therefore did not pre-empt the British by occupying and taking over Athens, although it was capable of doing so.

On December 1, 1944, the Athens government issued a directive requiring all resistance groups and militias (with a few exceptions) to disarm and demobilize.  EAM-ELAS refused, and the six EAM representatives resigned their positions in the unity government.  EAM called for a mass assembly, which was carried out by some 200,000 EAM supporters in Athens on December 3.  As the crowd traversed parts of the downtown area, gunfire erupted.  In the ensuing tumult, some 28 persons were killed and 148 were injured.

Large-scale fighting then broke out in Athens, which led to a six-week battle known in Greece as the “Dekemvriata” (English: December Events), between the Greek government, supported by British forces, and EAM-ELAS.  Initially, EAM-ELAS held the
initiative as they controlled large sections of Athens. 
The arrival of many British reinforcements, however, turned the tide of battle and EAM-ELAS soon was driven out of the capital.

(Taken from Greek Civil War – Wars of the 20th Century – Volume 3)

Background

The Greek Civil War has its origin in World War II, in April 1941 when the Axis Powers of Germany, Italy,
and Bulgaria invaded and overrun Greece and defeated and expelled the Greek and British forces.  Greece’s King George II and the Greek government fled to exile in Britain-controlled Egypt, where they set up a government-in-exile in Cairo.  In Greece,
the Axis partitioned the country into zones of occupation and set up a collaborationist government in Athens.

Organized resistance to the occupation began in July 1941 when officers and members of the Greek Communist Party, or KKE (Greek transliteration: Kommounistikó Kómma Elládas), many of whom had been jailed by Greece’s right-wing military government before the war but had escaped
following the Axis invasion, secretly met and formed a unified “popular front” to fight the occupation forces and collaborationist government.  This idea bore fruit when in September 1941, the KKE and three other leftist organizations formed the National Liberation Front, or EAM (Greek transliteration: Ethniko Apeleftherotiko Metopo), whose aims were to liberate Greece, and to advance “the Greek people’s sovereign right to determine its form of
government”.

In February 1942, EAM formed an armed wing, the Greek People’s Liberation Army, or ELAS (Greek transliteration: Ellinikós Laïkós Apeleftherotikós Stratós), which carried out guerilla and sabotage operations against the Axis forces and collaborationist government.  Success in the battlefield allowed EAM-ELAS to gain control of the Greek countryside and mountain areas, drawing active support from the rural population (communist and non-communists), and allowing the resistance to grow to 50,000 fighters and 500,000 non-combat
auxiliaries.  Perhaps as much as three-quarters of Greek territory came under EAM-ELAS control, although the major urban areas, including Athens,
continued to be held by the Axis.

Other resistance movements (all advocating non-communist ideologies) also operated during the occupation, with the two major of these being the National Republican Greek League, or EDES (Greek transliteration: Ethnikos Dimokratikos Ellinikos Syndesmos, abbreviated) and the National and
Social Liberation, or EKKA (Greek transliteration: Ethniki kai Koinoniki Apeleftherosis).  These groups had much smaller militias and were less military capable of confronting the enemy than was EAM-ELAS.  Britain provided technical and material support to all Greek resistance groups, including EAM-ELAS, whose communist ideology were at odds with the British.

The Greek resistance groups were hostile to each other, and skirmishes broke out among them as did they against the Axis forces/collaborationist militias.  The British and EAM-ELAS also were wary of each other with regards to post-war Greece and the
country’s political future.  This mutual distrust initially was set aside because of the need to fight a common enemy, but gradually increased toward war’s end when the Axis defeat became certain.

The British were concerned that EAM-ELAS, with its overtly pro-Soviet inclination, would prevail in the war and transform post-war Greece into a Marxist state aligned with the Soviet Union.  For the British, a communist country in the Mediterranean Sea, especially one that potentially would allow a Soviet maritime presence through a naval agreement or
the use of ports would threaten the Suez Canal, Britain’s vital link to India and other British colonies in Asia.  Britain was determined that King George II
should return to Greece, which would guarantee the formation of a conservative government friendly to
British interests.

Because of its multi-party, multi-ideology origins, EAM-ELAS officially promoted a democratic policy. 
However, since it was dominated by the KKE (comprising the largest constituent organization), EAM-ELAS was formed and functioned along communist lines.  EAM-ELAS also was firmly opposed
to the return of Greece’s government-in-exile, because of fears of a return to the pre-war right-wing
(i.e. repressive) regime, as well as to the return of the king, who had supported that regime.

In March 1944, EAM established a quasi-government called the Political Committee of National Liberation, or PEEA (Greek transliteration:
Politiki Epitropi Ethikis Apeleftherosis), commonly known as the “Mountain Government”.  The PEEA held legislative elections where women, for the first time in Greece, were allowed to vote.  The rebel government called for continuing the resistance against the occupation, “destruction of fascism”, and the independence and sovereignty of Greece.

In April 1944, a mutiny broke out in Egypt among soldiers of the exiled Greek Armed Forces, who declared that the government-in-exile was irrelevant and needed to be replaced by a new, progressive government that genuinely represented the
changes taking place in Greece.  British authorities quelled the mutiny, and jailed the soldiers.

The mutiny, however, led to the end of the
government-in-exile.  In May 1944, under British sponsorship, representatives from the various Greek political parties and resistance groups met and held talks in Beirut, Lebanon.  These talks, called the Lebanon Conference, led to the formation of a coalition government (called the government of
national unity) led by Prime Minister Georgios Papandreou.  Of the 24 posts in the new government, 6 were allocated to EAM.  The conference also agreed that King George’s return to Greece would be postponed and subject to a referendum that would decide the fate of the monarchy.

November 30, 1939 – World War II: The Soviet Union invades Finland

On November 30, 1939, the Winter War began between the Soviet Union and Finland with Soviet planes bombing Helsinki, Viipuri, and other locations, killing civilians and destroying infrastructures.  The next day, at the Gulf of Finland, the Soviet cruiser Kirov and her escort of two destroyers attempted to bombard Hanko but instead were fired upon by Finnish coastal batteries at Russaro Island, taking hits and forced to return to their base at Kronstadt, near Leningrad.  Shortly after the Red Army launched its invasion, Finland appealed to the League of Nations, which on December 14, 1939, expelled the Soviet Union and called on member states to help Finland.

Key battle sites during the Winter War.

On December 1, 1939, anticipating a quick campaign, the Soviet Union formed a new Finnish state, the Finnish Democratic Republic, atTerijoki, led by exiled Finnish communist leaders, in the hope that the new regime would encourage the Finnish working class and general population to rise up in revolt and overthrow the Helsinki government.  As it turned out, no uprising occurred; instead, Finns of all social classes rallied behind their government in Helsinki.

At the same time, the Red Army launched its ground campaign along the whole length of the Soviet-Finnish border, with the major concentration located at the Karelian Isthmus and north of Lake Ladoga, as well as secondary attacks further north, at Lieksa, Kuhmo, Suomussalmi, Salla, and Petsamo.  In the far north, the Soviet Navy bombarded Petsamo, followed the next day by Red Army troops taking control of the city, which was earlier evacuated by the small Finnish garrison.

(Taken from Winter War – Wars of the 20th Century – World War II in Europe)

The Soviet Union was eager for war, and Stalin and most of the Soviet High Command were fully confident of achieving success in a short campaign, perhaps as little as a few days, and in blitzkrieg fashion with overwhelming force, essentially rivaling what the Germans had achieved in their conquest of the western half of Poland.  Soviet optimism was borne from its highly successful campaign in the
eastern half of Poland just two months earlier, where the Polish Army put up only token resistance.  Stalin anticipated a similar lackluster performance by the Finns.

On November 26, 1939, Mainilla, a Russian frontier village in the Karelian Isthmus, was attacked by artillery fire.  The Soviets put the blame for the attack on the Finnish forces positioned just across the border, and then demanded that Finland issue an apology and move back its forces 12-16 miles from the border.  When the Finnish government denied any involvement and refused to move back its forces, the Soviet Union repealed the Soviet-Finnish non-aggression pact, and on November 29, 1939, cut diplomatic relations with Finland.

By then, Stalin was impatient and ready to go to war, as large numbers of Soviet forces had already been brought forward in September-October 1939 and were massed along the 600-mile Soviet-Finnish
border.  With the deployment of first-line assault forces in November 1939, the Red Army was poised to attack.  The Soviet invasion force totaled 540,000 troops, 3,000 tanks, and 3,000 planes, an overwhelming superiority in numbers over the Finnish Army by the ratio of 3:1 in manpower, 100:1 in tanks, and 30:1 in planes.

Guiding Soviet offensive strategy was the Deep Battle concept developed in the 1930s, which envisioned the coordinated use of massive land, sea, and air power to advance deep and quickly inside enemy territory to achieve complete tactical and strategic victory.  But in 1937-1938, Stalin launched a major purge of the Red Army officer corps (some 50% were affected), which was part of the larger Great Purge involving the Soviet communist party itself and other perceived enemies of the state.  As a result, by 1939, very few in the Soviet High Command and newly appointed officers who had been promoted more for party loyalty than military competence,
knew how to implement Deep Battle in actual warfare.  Furthermore, all Red Army units had a
political commissar, who ensured compliance by officers and men of the communist party line and had the authority to countermand orders by unit commanders, if they ran contrary to party policies.  A few Soviet generals resisted the optimism of the Soviet High Command regarding the Finnish campaign, and advised caution and more preparation for the invasion. General Kirill Meretskov, over-all
commander of the invasion force, also (correctly) warned that the Finnish terrain, which was characterized by many lakes, rivers, swamps, and forest, could be a major problem for the Red Army.

Soviet forces positioned along the whole length of the Finnish-Soviet border, from the Gulf of Finland in the south to Murmansk in the north, were deployed as follows: Soviet 7th Army, with nine divisions, was tasked with taking the Karelian Isthmus including Viipuri (Finland’s second major city); Soviet 8th Army, with six divisions, would advance through the north of Lake Ladoga, and executing a flanking maneuver, attack the rear of the Finnish Mannerheim Line; Soviet 9th Army, with three divisions, would attack west through the central region and cut Finland in half; and Soviet 14th Army, with three divisions, would advance from Murmansk and take Petsamo.  All Soviet armies were supported by large
numbers of armored, artillery, and air units.

The Finnish Army, which was greatly outnumbered in manpower and weapons, was led by Marshall Carl Gustaf Mannerheim, who organized a
defensive strategy based on the assumption that the fighting would focus in and around the Karelian Isthmus.  The Army of the Isthmus of six divisions (II
and III Army Corps; some 150,000 troops), comprising the bulk of the 180,000-strong
Finnish Army, was tasked to defend the Karelian Isthmus, while two divisions (IV Army Corps, 20,000 troops) would secure the left flank, north of Lake
Ladoga.  Mannerheim had (incorrectly) thought that the rest of the border right up to Petsamo, with its difficult terrain and harsh climate, was an unlikely invasion area, and thus was only lightly manned by Finnish border guards, civil guards, and reserve units
organized as the North Finland Group.  Unknown to the Finns, some 120,000 Soviet troops, supported by air, artillery, and air units, were poised to attack there as well.

The focal point of the Finnish defense in the Karelian Isthmus was the Mannerheim Line, some 80 miles extending from the shore of the Gulf of Finland and Summa in the west to Taipale at the edge of Lake Ladoga in the east, and fortified with 157 machinegun and artillery bunkers throughout its length, with the heaviest concentration of 41 bunkers located at Summa.  The Line was not evenly fortified
along its length, at some points only strengthened with barbed wire, boulders, and concrete slabs, or felled trees, and incorporated natural obstacles aimed
to slow down the advance of enemy armor and infantry.  The Line’s flanks were defended by coastal
batteries at the shores of the Gulf of Finland and Lake Ladoga.  Mannerheim did not think highly of the Line,
believing that it would be breached in 7-10 days.  In Karelia north of Lake Ladoga all the way to Petsamo in the north, the Finns possessed only less fortified defenses at Tolvajarvi, Kollaa, and Uomma-Impilahti, and individual Finnish commanders were encouraged to use guerilla tactics emphasizing speed, surprise, and deception and to incorporate the elements of terrain, long, dark winter nights, and weather conditions to meet the threat of the much larger Russian forces.

November 29, 1947 – Civil War in Palestine: The UN General Assembly approves a Partition Plan for Palestine

The United Nations offered a proposal for the partition for Palestine which the UN General Assembly subsequently approved on November 29, 1947.  The Palestinian Jews accepted the plan,
whereas the Palestinian Arabs rejected it.  The Palestinian Arabs took issue with what they felt was the unfair division of Palestine in relation to the Arab-Jewish population ratio.  The Jews made up 32% of Palestine’s population but would acquire 56% of the land.  The Arabs, who comprised 68% of the population, would gain 43% of Palestine.  The lands proposed for the Jews, however, had a mixed population composed of 46% Arabs and 54% Jews.  The areas of Palestine allocated to the Arabs consisted of 99% Arabs and 1% Jews.  No population
transfer was proposed.  Jerusalem and its surrounding areas, with their mixed population of 100,000 Jews and an equal number of Arabs, were to be
administered by the UN.

United Nations Partition Plan for Palestine. The original plan released by the UN proposed to allocate 56% of Palestine to Jews, while 43% would be allotted to Palestinian Arabs. Jerusalem, at 1% of the territory, would be administered by the UN.

(Taken from 1947-1948 Civil War in Palestine – Wars of the 20th Century – Volume 1)

Background

Through a League of Nations mandate, Britain
administered Palestine from 1920 to 1948.  For nearly all that time, the British rule was plagued by violence between the rival Arabs and Jewish populations that resided in Palestine.  The Palestinian Arabs resented the British for allowing the Jews to settle in what the Arabs believed was their ancestral
land.  The Palestinian Jews also were hostile to the British for limiting and sometimes even preventing other Jews from entering Palestine.  The Jews believed that Palestine had been promised to them as the site of their future nation.  Arabs and Jews clashed against each other; they also attacked the British authorities.  Bombings, massacres,
assassinations, and other violent civilian incidents occurred frequently in Palestine.

By the end of World War II in 1945, nationalist aspirations had risen among the Palestinian Arabs and Palestinian Jews.  Initially, Britain proposed an independent Palestine consisting of federated states of Arabs and Jews, but later deemed the plan
unworkable because of the uninterrupted violence.  The British, therefore, referred the issue of Palestine to the United Nations (UN).  The British also announced their intention to give up their mandate over Palestine, end all administrative functions
there, and withdraw their troops by May 15, 1948.  The last British troops actually left on June 30, 1948.

The UN offered a proposal for the partition for Palestine (Map 8) which the UN General Assembly subsequently approved on November 29, 1947.  The Palestinian Jews accepted the plan, whereas the Palestinian Arabs rejected it.  The Palestinian Arabs took issue with what they felt was the unfair
division of Palestine in relation to the Arab-Jewish population ratio.  The Jews made up 32% of Palestine’s population but would acquire 56%
of the land.  The Arabs, who comprised 68% of the population, would gain 43% of Palestine.  The lands proposed for the Jews, however, had a mixed population composed of 46% Arabs and 54% Jews.  The areas of Palestine allocated to the Arabs consisted of 99% Arabs and 1% Jews.  No population
transfer was proposed.  Jerusalem and its surrounding areas, with their mixed population of 100,000 Jews and an equal number of Arabs, were to be administered by the UN.

1947-1948 Civil War in Palestine Shortly after the UN approved the partition plan, hostilities broke out in Palestine.  Armed bands of Jews and Arabs attacked rival villages and settlements, threw explosives into crowded streets, and ambushed or used land mines against vehicles plying the roads.  Attacks and punitive attacks occurred; single gunfire shots led to widespread armed clashes.

By the end of May 1948, over 2,000 Palestinian civilians (Arabs and Jews) had been killed and thousands more had been wounded.  The British still held legal authority over Palestine, but did little
to stop the violence, as they were in the process of withdrawing their forces and disengaging from further involvement in the region’s internal affairs.  The British did interfere in a few instances and suffered casualties as well.

A large Jewish paramilitary, as well as a number of smaller Jewish militias, already existed and operated clandestinely during the period of the British mandate.  As the violence escalated, Jewish leaders integrated these armed groups into a single Jewish
Army.

Fighting on the side of the Palestinian Arabs were two rival armed groups: a smaller militia composed of Palestinian Arab fighters, and a larger paramilitary organized by the neighboring Arab countries.  Egypt,
Syria, and Jordan did not want to send their armies to Palestine at this time since this would be an act of war against powerful Britain.

During the course of the war, the Jews experienced major logistical problems with the distant Jewish settlements that were separated
from the main Jewish strongholds along the coast.  These Jewish exclaves included Jerusalem, where one-sixth of all Palestinian Jews lived, as well as the many small villages and settlements in the north (Galilee) and in the south (Negev).

Jewish leaders sent militia units to these areas to augment existing local defense forces that consisted solely of local civilians.  These isolated settlements were instructed to hold their ground at all costs. 
Supplying these Jewish exclaves was particularly dangerous, as delivery convoys were ambushed and had to traverse many Arab settlements along the way.  Food rationing, therefore, was imposed in
many distant Jewish settlements, a policy that persisted until the war’s end.

The Jews gained a clear advantage in the fighting after they had organized a unified army.  Their
military leaders imposed mandatory conscription of men and single women, first only for the younger adult age groups, and later, for all men under age 40 and single women up to age 35.  By April 1948, the
Jewish Army had numbered 21,000 soldiers, up significantly from the few thousands at the start of the war.

The Jews also increased their weapons stockpiles from generous contributions made by wealthy donors in Europe and the United States.  As the UN had imposed an arms embargo on Palestine, the Jews smuggled in their weapons, which were purchased mainly from dealers in Czechoslovakia.  These weapons began to arrive in Palestine early in the
fighting, greatly enhancing the Jews’ war effort.  The Jews also procured some weapons from clandestine small-arms manufacturers in Palestine; however, the output from local manufacturers was insufficient to fill the demands of the Jews’ growing army as well as the widening conflict.

Starting in April 1948, the Jewish Army launched a number of offensives aimed at securing Jewish territories as well as protecting Jewish civilians in Arab-held areas.  These Jewish operations were carried out in anticipation of the Arab armies intervening in Palestine once the British Mandate ended on May 15, 1948.

On April 2, 1948, Jewish forces advanced toward Jerusalem in order to lift the siege on the city and allow the entry of supply vehicles.  The Jews cleared the roads of Arab fighters and took control of the Arab villages nearby.  The operation was only partially successful, however, as Jewish delivery convoys continued to be ambushed along the roads.  Furthermore, Jewish authorities were condemned by the international community after a Jewish attack on the Arab village of Deir Yassin resulted in the deaths of over one hundred Arab civilians.

On April 8, Jewish forces succeeded in lifting the siege on Mishmar Haemek, a Jewish kibbutz in the Jezreel Valley.  The Jews then launched a counter-attack that captured nearby Arab settlements. 
Further offensives allowed the Jews to seize control of northeastern Palestine.  Also falling to Jewish forces were Tiberias in mid-April, Haifa and Jaffa later in the month, and Beisan and Safed in May.  In southern Palestine, the Jews captured key areas in the Negev.  The Jewish offensives greatly reduced the Palestinian Arabs’ capacity to continue the war.

In the wake of the Jewish victories, hundreds of thousands of Arab civilians fled from their homes, leaving scores of empty villages that were looted and destroyed by Jewish forces.  Earlier in 1948, tens of thousands of middle-class and upper-class Arabs
had left Palestine for safety in neighboring Arab countries.  Jewish authorities formally annexed captured Arab lands, merging them with Jewish territories already under their control.

On May 14, 1948, one day before the end of the British Mandate in Palestine, the Jews declared independence as the State of Israel.  The following day, British rule in Palestine ended.  Within a few hours, the armies of the Arab countries, specifically those from Egypt, Jordan, Syria, Lebanon, and Iraq, invaded the new country of Israel, triggering the second phase of the conflict – the 1948 Arab-Israeli War (next article).

November 28, 1966 – Burundi’s Inter-ethnic Strife: Defense Minister Michel Micombero overthrows King Ntare V, abolishes the monarchy, and declares a republic with himself as its first president

In July 1966, Prince Ndizeye of Burundi claimed the throne, designating himself King Ntare V, and appointed Michel Micombero, the Defense
Minister, as the country’s Prime Minister.  But on November 28, 1966, Micombero overthrew King Ntare, abolished the monarchy, and declared the country a republic with himself as its first
president.

The fall of the Burundian monarchy marked the end of a moderating middle force against the hostility between the country’s two main ethnic groups: Hutus and Tutsis.  President Micombero ruled as a military dictator, despite the country being officially a democracy; he consolidated power by repressing all
opposition, particularly the militant Hutu factions.  Many moderate Hutus continued to serve in the
civil service and even top government bureaucracy, but only in positions subordinate to Tutsis.

Burundi and nearby countries.

(Taken from Burundi’s Inter-ethnic Strife – Wars of the 20th Century – Volume 2)

After World War II ended in 1945, nationalist sentiments emerged and expanded rapidly within the African colonies.  To prepare Burundi for independence, in November 1959, Belgium allowed political parties to organize.  Then in parliamentary
elections held in September 1961, UPRONA or Union
for National Progress (French: Union pour le Progres National), which comprised Tutsi and Hutu politicians, won a clear majority in the legislature.  Prince Louis Rwagasore, UPRONA leader and the king’s son, became prime minister.  Just one month later, however, Prince Rwagasore was assassinated, ending his vision of integrating Burundi’s ethnic classes.  Prince Rwagasore’s death also led to a period of successive Tutsi and Hutu political leaders alternating
as prime minister.

On June 20, 1962, Ruanda-Urundi ceased as a United Nations Trust Territory under Belgian administration and the colony’s union was dissolved.  Then on July 1, 1962, Urundi, renamed Burundi,
and Ruanda, renamed Rwanda, both gained their independences.  Burundi was established as a constitutional monarchy, with the monarch, then King Mwambutsa IV, as ceremonial head of state, and governmental powers vested in a Prime Minister and a national legislature.  The Parliament was controlled by the bi-ethnic UPRONA, but by 1963, serious rifts
in the party had developed along ethnic lines.  In January 1965, the Prime Minister, a Hutu, was assassinated, which triggered a flurry of ethnic violence with Hutus attacking Tutsis, and retaliations by the Tutsi-dominated military forces targeting Hutus.  In the elections held in May of that year,
Hutu politicians gained control of Parliament and then elected another Hutu as Prime Minister.  King Mwambutsa, already overwhelmed by the rising tensions, rejected the selection and named a Tutsi as
Prime Minister.

In October 1965, Hutu military officers attempted to depose the monarch in a coup, but failed.  Violent reprisals by government forces followed, which claimed the lives of some 5,000 Hutu military officers and top government officials.  The purge of influential Hutus allowed the Tutsis to gain political and military control and achieve a monopoly over state power that would last for many years.

The ethnic unrest also was a result of the much greater turmoil that had erupted in Rwanda, Burundi’s northern neighbor that likewise shared a similar ethnic composition of Hutu, Tutsi, and Twa populations and where in 1959, Hutus broke out in riots and killed tens of thousands of Tutsis, seized power by deposing the Tutsi monarchy, and established a Hutu one-party state (previous article).  Some 150,000 Rwandan Tutsis fled into exile in neighboring countries, including Burundi.  In the ensuing years, the events that were transpiring in Rwanda would have repercussions in Burundi,
and vice-versa.

In Burundi, as a result of the coup attempt, King Mwambutsa went into exile abroad in November 1965; soon thereafter, he handed over all royal duties to his son, Prince Ndizeye.  In July 1966, Prince
Ndizeye claimed the throne, designating himself King Ntare V, and appointed Michel Micombero, the Defense Minister, as the country’s Prime Minister.  In November 1966, Micombero overthrew King Ntare, abolished the monarchy, and declared the country a republic with himself as its first president.

The fall of the Burundian monarchy marked the end of a moderating middle force against the hostility between Hutus and Tutsis.  President Micombero ruled as a military dictator, despite the country being officially a democracy; he consolidated power by repressing all opposition, particularly the militant Hutu factions.  Many moderate Hutus continued
to serve in the civil service and even top government bureaucracy, but only in positions subordinate to Tutsis.

In 1971, President Micombero faced a different challenge, this time in northern Burundi from the Banyaruguru, a Tutsi subgroup, whom he believed were planning to overthrow the government (Micombero’s government was dominated by Tutsi-Hima, another Tutsi subgroup, from southern Burundi).  Consequently, nine Tutsi-Banyaruguru
government officials and military officers were executed while others received jail sentences.

Then in April 1972, Hutus in southern Burundi, taking advantage of the intra-ethnic Tutsi turmoil, rose up in revolt.  The uprising, which also was triggered by the government’s repressive policies and additional purges of Hutu military officers, began in Bururi Province, particularly in Rumonge, and spread quickly to other areas around Lake Tanganyika, where
machete- and spear-wielding bands of Hutu fanatical youths roamed the countryside, attacked Tutsi villages, raided police and military stations, and
destroyed public infrastructures.  Within a few days, some 1,000 to 3,000 Tutsis had been killed before the marauders, now armed with firearms seized from government armories, withdrew to Vyanda where they proclaimed independence as the “Martyazo Republic”.

The government’s response was swift and brutal, with the military forces crushing the rebellion and declaring that the rebels were communists.  Furthermore, Micombero, who was from Bururi Province, was determined to end the Hutu threat once and for all.  As a consequence of the rebellion, many Hutu government officials and military
personnel were executed.  Recruitment to the armed forces was amended to virtually exclude Hutus and only allow Tutsis.

Hutu students of all ages, and Hutu teachers were rounded up from the schools and later transported to designated areas where they were
executed.  Government soldiers, as well as their Tutsi paramilitary allies, carried out the executions, including those of the Hutu clergy and influential Hutu members of society.  From late April to September 1972, some 100,000 to 200,000 Hutus were killed in the event known as the 1972 Burundi
Genocide.  An estimated 10,000 Tutsis also lost their lives during the period.  Some 300,000 Hutus also fled as refugees to neighboring Rwanda, Zaire,
and particularly in Tanzania.

November 27, 1978 – Iranian Revolution: Thousands of people go into frenzied celebration after seeing Ayatollah Khomeini’s face in the light of the moon

The Shah’s decision to expel Ayatollah Khomeini to a more distant location from Iran failed as international, mostly western, journalists flocked to the cleric’s home in France for interviews, generating a great amount of good publicity for the ayatollah and the revolution in his homeland, and bad publicity for Shah Mohammad Reza Pavlavi and the Iranian
government.  Ayatollah Khomeini’s staid, numinous demeanor impressed upon the western press of an “Eastern mystic”, further enhancing the cleric’s religious stature.  In Iran, the ayatollah took on a
semi-divine status, and on the night of November 27, 1978, thousands of people went into frenzied celebration after believing to have seen the cleric’s face in the light of the moon.  Also in November 1978, Karim Sanjabi, general secretary of the National Front, an outlawed secular Iranian political party, met with the exiled cleric in Paris; they subsequently forged an alliance that united their forces, a symbolic act as liberals, nationalists, communists, and other secular groups were already joining the religion-fueled mass actions. However, Ayatollah Khomeini’s belief in the incompatibility between western-styled democracy and Islam would later play out in shaping the government of post-revolutionary Iran.

Iran and nearby countries.

(Taken from Iranian Revolution – Wars of the 20th Century – Volume 4)

Revolution

In October 1977, protests broke out.  Many political factions had long opposed the Shah, e.g. liberals, democrats, communists, each motivated by diverse reasons but suppressed by SAVAK and other
security units.  By the mid-1970s, only the Shah’s official Rastakhiz Party functioned, as multi-party politics was outlawed, reinforcing the notion that Iran was an autocracy.  By then, to many Iranians, the Shah had become a cold, distant figure.  Rumors
and reports of corruption and extravagance by the monarch, royal family, and government were prevalent.  Moreover, economic growth mostly benefited only the ruling few, widening the gap between rich and poor, and the vast majority experienced little, if any, improvement in their daily lives.

During his reign, the Shah made certain that the country was secure from foreign and internal threats, particularly from the Soviet Union and Iranian communists.  Suppression of dissent was severe to the extent that although the government refrained from interfering with clerical matters (because of the clergy’s power and influence among the people), the Shah and his security forces were favorite alibis for the cause of supposedly “mysterious” deaths among the clergy and political activists.  Thus, the deaths of the popular religious intellectual, Ali Shariati, in June 1977, and Ayatollah Khomeini’s son, the cleric Mostafa Khomeini, in October 1977, were blamed on the government.

Another factor that contributed to the rise of the
opposition came from an unexpected source: the United States.  President Jimmy Carter, who became U.S. head of state in January 1977 with human rights as his major foreign policy initiative, put pressure on the Shah to tone down government-sponsored repression in Iran.  Because of the ongoing Cold War, however, President Carter continued to actively support the Shah, even making a state visit to Iran
in December 1977 and expressing high regard for the monarch at a state dinner.  But President Carter’s (initial) reproof and the Shah’s releasing over 300 political prisoners in February 1978 encouraged the opposition, believing that the Shah’s support from his
staunchest ally was weakening.

The year 1978 became the critical period, as it marked the start of the revolution where the various anti-Shah political, economic, social, and religious factors united into a powerful opposition.  Ayatollah Khomeini, still in exile, urged Iranians to overthrow the Shah.  Then on January 7 of that year, an article in a major national newspaper made scathing personal and religious attacks on Ayatollah Khomeini.  The article, which was written under an alias that later was identified as belonging to a high-ranking government official, stated that the ayatollah had questionable clerical credentials, was of part Indian (and thus not purely Iranian) descent, was acting on British interests (i.e. he was a “British agent”), and had personal and political ambitions.  On hindsight, the government erred by publishing the article, as the cleric was by now largely forgotten in Iran but which
now allowed the ayatollah to re-enter the people’s consciousness.  At Qom, the exiled cleric’s hometown in southern Iran, outraged seminary students broke out in protest at the newspaper article, leading to clashes with security forces that resulted in four students being killed (Ayatollah Khomeini gave a much higher number of fatalities and called the dead students “martyrs”).

Then on February 18, 1978, more protests broke out in many towns and cities to commemorate the Qom deaths, as per Arbayeen, a Shiite tradition of holding memorial services forty days after a person’s death.  A riot ensued in Tabriz, with protesters attacking and destroying movie theaters, night clubs, and other infrastructures deemed an abomination to Islam.  Six protesters were killed, although the opposition declared that hundreds were “martyred”.  Then on March 29, 1978, forty days later, to commemorate the Tabriz deaths, more demonstrations were carried out, which once more degenerated into deadly confrontations.  Again forty days later, on May 10, in another memorial service observing Abayeen, anti-Shah factions launched more
demonstrations in towns and cities.

These protests, and especially the deadly violence that ensued, shocked the Shah who implemented changes to his government: SAVAK was restructured, with a moderate military officer appointed as its head, and government officials with tainted records (as determined by the Shah) were dismissed.  The government also made efforts to win over moderate sectors of the clergy.  These measures appeared to work, as opposition activity abated during mid-1978. 
At the urging of Ayatollah Mohammad Kazem Shariatmadari, a leading cleric, a protest action scheduled on June 17, 1978 was carried out in mosques and not on the streets.  The government,
as well as the CIA which, by this time, also had taken notice of the growing unrest, were convinced that the turbulence had been contained (which turned out to be a gross miscalculation).

On August 19, 1978, in Abadan, a city in southwestern Iran, a fire broke out that destroyed Cinema Rex, a movie theater, leaving 422 people
killed.  Dozens of movie houses had been destroyed during earlier periods of unrest, but the large number of casualties at Cinema Rex prompted tens of thousands of people to take to the streets in
anger, believing that the government, specifically SAVAK, had caused the fire.  Anti-Shah activities now
intensified, with protests of hundreds of thousands of people taking place all across the country, which would lead to the final phase of the revolution.  In Isfahan, martial law was declared when protesters went on a rampage and destroyed West-oriented private properties.  Jamshid Amouzegar, the Prime Minister, resigned, and the Shah replaced him with Jafar Sharif-Emami.

The new Prime Minister yielded even more political, security, and social concessions: elections were proposed, multi-party politics was allowed, and the Rastakhan Party was abolished; SAVAK’s powers were curtailed and political prisoners freed; press censorship was lifted as were restrictions on the right to assembly; the Islamic calendar was reinstated and
western-oriented symbols and infrastructures deemed offensive to Islam were removed or shut down.  These concessions were in vain, however.

By early September 1978, mass protest actions were occurring almost daily with crowds containing up to 500,000 people.  Calls for the return of Ayatollah Khomeini and formation of an Islamic state also grew.  On September 8, 1978, the government declared martial law in Tehran and other urban
centers, banned mass assemblies, and declared an overnight curfew.  On that same day, a street demonstration in Tehran involving thousands of people ended in a bloody incident in Jaleh Square, where army units, which consisted of new recruits eager to enforce the ban on mass assembly, opened
fire on the crowd.  With other bloody incidents taking place throughout the day, the total number of fatalities reached 88 (a figure that was later determined after the revolution).  The government casualty figure given at the time was 86.  Ayatollah Khomeini’s figure of 4,000 dead, however, was widely accepted by most people.  Other contemporary news media placed the number of killed ranging from a few hundred to a few thousand to even as high as 15,000.

At any rate, this incident, known as Black Friday, became the crucial point of the revolution, invariably turning moderate opposition and neutral sectors of society against the Shah.  The scale of the violence likewise cowed the government into inaction,
and the military thereafter was hesitant to enforce martial law with any real effect.  By mid-September 1978, the labor sector had sided openly with the opposition, and private and public workers’ strikes were breaking out in all major towns and cities.  By late October 1978, a full-blown industry-wide general strike (notably involving the oil sector that was crucial to the government’s survival) had brought the country’s economy into a stand-still, threatening a financial collapse.  Protest actions also had become much more violent, e.g. looting and destroying banks, stores, western-oriented buildings, the foreign embassies of Britain and the United States, etc.

During this time, Iran and Iraq were experiencing
rapprochement in their otherwise long-standing hostile relationship, with Saddam Hussein, the Iraqi leader, presenting to the Shah two options on how to
deal with Ayatollah Khomeini (still exiled in Najaf,
Iraq): assassinate, or expel the cleric from Iraq.  The Shah, after deliberating with his Cabinet, deemed that the cleric’s death would generate even greater tumult and decided on expulsion.  On October 3,
1978, Ayatollah Khomeini was expelled from Iraq
and after being stopped from entering neighboring Kuwait, was granted entry in France, where he set up residence in Neauphle-le-Château located outside Paris, in a house that was rented out for him by Iranian émigrés.

The Shah’s decision to expel the ayatollah from Iraq to a more distant location from Iran failed, however, as international, mostly western, journalists flocked to the cleric’s home for interviews, generating a great amount of good publicity for the ayatollah and the revolution in his homeland, and bad publicity for the Shah and the Iranian government.  Ayatollah Khomeini’s staid, numinous demeanor impressed upon the western press of an “Eastern mystic”, further enhancing the cleric’s religious stature.  In Iran, the ayatollah took on a semi-divine status, and on the night of November 27, 1978, thousands of people went into frenzied celebration after believing to have seen the cleric’s face in the light of the moon.  Also in November 1978, Karim Sanjabi, general secretary of the National Front, an outlawed secular Iranian political party, met with the exiled cleric in Paris; they subsequently forged an alliance that united their forces, a symbolic act as liberals, nationalists, communists, and other secular groups were already joining the religion-fueled mass actions. However, Ayatollah Khomeini’s belief in the incompatibility between western-styled democracy and Islam would later play out in shaping the government of post-revolutionary Iran.

On November 5, 1978, in a television broadcast to his people, the Shah acknowledged that he recognized the revolution but said he disapproved of it, and promised to make amends for his mistakes and work to restore democracy.  The following day, he
dismissed Prime Minister Sharif-Emami, replacing him with General Gholam Reza Azhari, a moderate military officer.  The Shah also arrested and jailed 80 former government officials whom he believed had failed the country and ultimately were responsible for the current unrest; the loss of his staunchest supporters, however, further isolated the Shah.  Simultaneously, he also released hundreds of
opposition political prisoners.

November 26, 1939 – Winter War: The Soviet Union blames Finland for shelling the Russian village of Mainilla

On November 26, 1939, Mainilla, a Russian frontier village in the Karelian Isthmus, was attacked by artillery fire.  The Soviets put the blame for the attack on the Finnish forces positioned just across the border, and then demanded that Finland issue an apology and move back its forces 12-16 miles from the border.  When the Finnish government denied any involvement and refused to move back its forces, the Soviet Union repealed the Soviet-Finnish non-aggression pact, and on November 29, 1939, cut diplomatic relations with Finland.

Finland and nearby countries.

By then, Stalin was impatient and ready to go to war, as large numbers of Soviet forces had already been brought forward in September-October 1939 and were massed along the 600-mile Soviet-Finnish
border.  With the deployment of first-line assault forces in November 1939, the Red Army was poised to attack.  The Soviet invasion force totaled 540,000 troops, 3,000 tanks, and 3,000 planes, an overwhelming superiority in numbers over the Finnish Army by the ratio of 3:1 in manpower, 100:1 in tanks, and 30:1 in planes.

(Taken from Winter War – Wars of the 20th Century – World War II in Europe)

Background

On August 23, 1939, Soviet Foreign Minister Vyacheslav Molotov and German Foreign Minister Joachim von Ribbentrop signed the German-Soviet Nonaggression Pact, which included a secret protocol where the two sides agreed to partition between their countries eastern and central Europe into respective spheres of influences.  Included in the Soviet sphere were the eastern half of Poland, the Baltic States Estonia and Latvia, and Finland, these territories being formerly part of the Russian Empire but had achieved their independences during the tumultuous final stages of World War I.

At once, Adolf Hitler and Joseph Stalin went to work on the agreement, first against Poland, with the German Wehrmacht invading from the west on September 1, 1939 triggering World War II against the Allies Britain and France, and the Soviet Red Army attacking from the east on September 17, 1939.  In early October 1939, the Polish Army was defeated, and independent Poland de facto ceased to exist, with its territories partitioned by Germany and the Soviet Union.

In September-October 1939, the Soviet Union applied strong diplomatic pressure on the Baltic States, and quickly cowered Lithuania, Latvia, and Estonia into signing mutual assistance agreements that allowed Soviet troops and bases in their countries.  In June 1940, Soviet forces occupied the Baltic States, and after socialist governments came to
power in Soviet-controlled elections held in July 1940, Lithuania, Latvia, and Estonia were incorporated into the Soviet Union in August 1940.

In October 1939, as in the Baltic States, the Soviet Union strong-armed Finland to gain strategic and territorial concessions.  Finland had been part of the Russian Empire, annexed by the latter in 1809 as the Grand Duchy of Finland but with broad autonomy. By the mid-19th century, a Finnish
nationalist movement had emerged in the capital Helsinki, which grew in opposition to the Empire’s Russification policies, and gradually adopted nationalist sentiments.  Then in December 1917,
taking advantage of the political turbulence in Russia
by the ongoing World War I and the Russian Civil War (which began in November 1917), Finland declared independence, but soon became mired in a bitter civil war between the pro-democratic White Guards and pro-Bolshevist Red Guards.  In May 1918, the White Guards prevailed, and Finland achieved full independence.

During the interwar period, Finland sought mutual security guarantees among its Nordic neighbors Sweden and Norway and two Baltic States Estonia and Latvia, but realized that no effective assistance could be expected from them if war broke out.  As well, the western powers Britain and France had no strategic interests in the region.  Finland then sought collective security in its membership in the League of Nations and its officially declared policy of strict neutrality.

In 1932, Finland also signed a non-aggression pact with the Soviet Union, which was extended to ten years in 1934.  Even so, relations between Finland and the Soviet Union remained detached, even guarded, not least because of ideological differences and the lingering suspicion generated by the Finnish Civil War where the Soviets had supported the Red Guards, and Germany the White Guards.  Finland distrusted the Soviets, particularly since the latter harbored and supported the exiled Finnish communist movement, while the Soviet
Union regarded the ruling right-wing conservative Finnish government as fascist and reactionary.

While officially neutral, Finland appeared to be pro-German, because of German assistance during the Finnish Civil War, which raised Soviet suspicions.  Soviet mistrust was furthered by a number of events: in 1937, when a German naval flotilla arrived in Helsinki, in 1938, when Finland held celebrations honoring German support during the civil war, and in 1939, when Franz Halder, the German Army chief of
staff, arrived in Helsinki.

Soviet pressure on Finland for territorial concessions had begun in April 1938, the secret negotiations continuing intermittently until the summer of 1939, with no agreement being reached because of strong Finnish opposition.  In June 1939,
following the visit of high-level German military officials to Finland, Stalin was convinced that not only was a Soviet-German war imminent, but that German
forces would use Finland as a springboard to attack the Soviet Union.

But the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact quelled Stalin’s concerns and seemingly gave assurance that the Germans would not interfere in Finland.  Thus, the Soviets increased their pressure on the Finnish government, in October 1939 releasing the following demands: that the Finnish-Soviet border along the Karelian Isthmus be moved west to a point 20 miles east of Viipuri; that Finnish fortifications in the Karelian Isthmus be dismantled; that Finland cede to the Soviet Union the islands in the Gulf of Finland, the Kalastajansaarento (Rybachi) Peninsula in the Barents Sea, and the Salla area; and that Hanko be leased for 30 years to the Soviet Union, where a
Russian military base would be built.  In return, the Soviets would cede to Finland Repola and Porajarvi from Eastern Karelia, a territory whose size of 3,400 square kilometers was twice as large as those demanded from Finland.

For Stalin, the Soviet-Finnish negotiations must address the security guarantees for Leningrad, since the city was located just 20 miles from the Finnish border and within firing range of Finnish heavy artillery.  Stalin wanted to adjust the border here further to the west into Finland, with the ceded territory serving as a buffer zone between the two nations.  However, the Finnish government saw these
territorial demands as the first step to an eventual Soviet take-over of Finland.  On October 6 and 10, the Finnish government issued a call-up of reserves and effectively conducted a general mobilization,
fearing that the Soviet demands would be tantamount to Finland meeting the same fate as the Balkan States.  The negotiations, though conducted openly, were characterized by great mutual distrust: the Finns believing that the Soviet offer was merely a first step to gobble up Finland, and the Soviets who believed that Finland would side with Germany in a future war.

The Finns presented a counter-offer, agreeing to cede territory in the Karelian Isthmus that would double the distance of the Finnish border to Leningrad.  But by then, Stalin was in no mood for more talks and was determined to use armed force, deciding that the Finns were negotiating in bad faith.