Daniel Orr's Blog, page 27

March 12, 1970 – Cambodian Civil War: Lon Nol demands that Vietnamese forces leave Cambodia within 72 hours

In September 1969, conservative politicians, frustrated atthe continuing Vietnamese occupation of eastern Cambodia, made plans to overthrowSihanouk.  Then in March 1970, whileSihanouk was on a trip outside the country, anti-Vietnamese demonstrationsbroke out in Phnom Penh.  The protests turned violent, with mobsentering and looting the embassies of North Vietnam and ProvisionalRevolutionary Government of South Vietnam (the Viet Cong’s government-in-exile).

Taking advantage of the widespread anti-Vietnamese sentimentamong Cambodians, Prime Minister Lon Nol closed down Sihanoukville tocommunist-flagged vessels.  Lon Nol alsovoided Sihanouk’s trade agreement with North Vietnam, and on March 12,1970, he demanded that Vietnamese forces leave Cambodian territory within 72hours.

Lon Nol initially was unwilling to support the plot tooverthrow Sihanouk.  But on March 18,1970, he convened the National Assembly, which in a 92-0 non-confidence vote,declared its ceasing recognition of Sihanouk as Cambodia’s head of state, anddeposed him.  Subsequently in October1970, Lon Nol declared the end of the Kingdom of Cambodia.  In its place, he formed the Khmer Republic, taking the position of president.  The new regime was firmly pro-American, and U.S.advisers, weapons, and military equipment soon arrived.

Southeast Asia in the 1960s.

(Taken from Cambodian Civil War – Wars of the 20th Century – Volume 5)

Meanwhile in Cambodia,Sihanouk sought to stay away from the conflict in Vietnamby maintaining a policy of non-alignment (which he called “extreme neutrality”)for Cambodia.  He took part in the 1955 Bandung Conference(in Bandung, Indonesia) which led to theformation of the Non-Aligned Movement.

But by the second half of the 1950s, Sihanouk had alsoestablished friendly ties with China,particularly to serve as a deterrent against Cambodia’shistorical ethnic enemies, the Thais and Vietnamese, and also because he viewedthe U.S. presence in Indochina as temporary, when considered over the longterm, just as it had been for the French. In an agreement made in February 1956, Cambodiareceived economic aid from China.  In 1958, Cambodiaand Chinaestablished diplomatic relations.  Twoyears later, 1960, they signed the Treaty of Friendship and Non-aggression.

Thailandand South Vietnam, Cambodia’sneighbors on either side, viewed the Cambodian government with deep suspicion,believing Sihanouk to be aligning with the communists.  Then when two attempts were made on Sihanouk(in January and August 1959), he accused South Vietnam of plotting hisassassination.

Invariably intertwined with Cambodia’s foreign relations werethe ancient Cambodians’ historical animosity with their neighbors, the Thaisand Vietnamese.  In particular, duringthe 1800s, the Vietnamese had sought to eradicate the Indian-influencedCambodian culture and introduce the Chinese-influenced Vietnamese culture tothe Cambodians.  The Vietnamese alsoannexed a large section of Khmer territory, specifically the Mekong Delta ofpresent-day Vietnam.  As a result, later-day Cambodians viewed theVietnamese with suspicion and resentment, and these sentiments would play apart in the coming civil war.

While establishing diplomatic relations with China, Sihanouk also maintained friendly tieswith the West, particularly the United States. In 1955, Cambodia andthe United States signed amilitary agreement where the U.S.government provided weapons to Cambodia’smilitary (which was called FARK, Forces Armées Royales Khmères).  By the early 1960s, the Americans wereproviding military support equivalent to 30% of Cambodia’s defense appropriations.

In the mid-1960s, Cambodia’s neutrality was increasinglybeing undermined, first because North Vietnam had extended the Ho Chi MinhTrail (its logistical route to South Vietnam) across eastern Cambodia, andsecond, to counteract this North Vietnamese action, U.S. planes conductedsurveillance and bombing operations along the Ho Chi Minh Trail, and SouthVietnamese forces occasionally entered Cambodia to pursue the Viet Cong.

Sihanouk and his declared non-alignment also came under U.S. scrutiny when he signed agreements with China and North Vietnam.  In these agreements, Cambodia allowed thefollowing stipulations: that the North Vietnamese and the Viet Cong couldoccupy eastern Cambodia; that the port of Sihanoukville (Figure 7) would beopened to communist bloc ships that supplied war materials for the Viet Cong;and that the North Vietnamese would be allowed to use a road network acrossCambodia to transport the supplies from Sihanoukville to South Vietnam (thisroute became known in the West as the Sihanouk Trail).

In the early 1960s, as Cambodiamoved toward establishing closer ties with Chinaand North Vietnam, so didits relations with the United States deteriorate.  The decline in Cambodian-American relationsresulted from a number of factors: First, Sihanouk began to fear that astronger Cambodian military (which was supplied with U.S. weapons), would soonthreaten his government; Second, he believed that the United States wasinvolved in the assassination plots against him; and Third, he suspected thatthe U.S. military were supporting the Khmer Serei, a right-wing guerilla groupthat was fighting an insurgency war against the Cambodian government.  In November 1963, Sihanouk cut U.S. aid to Cambodia, and in May 1965,diplomatic relations between the two countries broke down.

In the September 1966 Cambodian parliamentary elections,right-wing candidates of the ruling Sangkum party won most of the seats in theNational Assembly, leading to the Cambodian government shifting to theright.  Pro-U.S. General Lon Nol becamethe new Prime Minister.  Also by thesecond half of the 1960s, Sihanouk again turned his foreign policy toward theWest, for the following reasons: First, Cambodia’s relations with China andNorth Vietnam did not produce clear economic benefits to Cambodia; Second, theloss of American aid was negatively affecting the Cambodian economy; and Third,this new foreign policy would balance the rightist and leftist elements inCambodia’s deeply politicized government. In June 1969, following the U.S.government’s promise to respect Cambodia’sneutrality and sovereignty, diplomatic relations between Cambodia and the United States were restored.

By this time, the right-wing faction in the Cambodiangovernment had lost confidence in Sihanouk’s capacity to resolve the country’smany political and economic problems.  InSeptember 1969, conservative politicians, frustrated at the continuingVietnamese occupation of eastern Cambodia, made plans to overthrowSihanouk.  Then in March 1970, whileSihanouk was on a trip outside the country, anti-Vietnamese demonstrationsbroke out in Phnom Penh.  The protests turned violent, with mobsentering and looting the embassies of North Vietnam and ProvisionalRevolutionary Government of South Vietnam (the Viet Cong’sgovernment-in-exile).

Taking advantage of the widespread anti-Vietnamese sentimentamong Cambodians, Prime Minister Lon Nol closed down Sihanoukville tocommunist-flagged vessels.  Lon Nol alsovoided Sihanouk’s trade agreement with North Vietnam, and on March 12,1970, he demanded that Vietnamese forces leave Cambodian territory within 72hours.

Lon Nol initially was unwilling to support the plot to overthrowSihanouk.  But on March 18, 1970, heconvened the National Assembly, which in a 92-0 non-confidence vote, declaredits ceasing recognition of Sihanouk as Cambodia’s head of state, anddeposed him.  Subsequently in October1970, Lon Nol declared the end of the Kingdom of Cambodia.  In its place, he formed the Khmer Republic, taking the position of president.  The new regime was firmly pro-American, and U.S. advisers,weapons, and military equipment soon arrived.

Meanwhile, the deposed Sihanouk took up residence in Beijing, China,where Mao Zedong’s government granted him political asylum. In Phnom Penh in the days after the coup, tens of thousands of Cambodians,mainly peasants with whom Sihanouk was extremely popular, launched largeprotest demonstrations in Kampong Cham, Takeo, and Kampot Provinces.  Some 40,000 farmers marched on Phnom Penh demanding thatSihanouk be restored to power. The demonstrations turned violent when securityforces dispersed the crowds, killing hundreds of protesters.  Violence also broke out against ethnicVietnamese living in Cambodia.  In the countryside, Cambodians massacredhundreds of ethnic Vietnamese.

Lon Nol launched a program to strengthen Cambodia’sarmed forces.  Many civilians signed upto join the military, with many recruits motivated by the sole desire to fightand expel the Vietnamese Army from eastern Cambodia.  As a result of heavy recruitment, theCambodian Army grew from 35,000 in early 1970, to a peak of 250,000 in 1974.

Sihanouk’s overthrow and the emergence of a pro-U.S.government would have profound effects for Cambodia, particularly with regardsto the ongoing Vietnam War.  The United States, long restrained by Cambodia’s official neutrality, increasedbombing operations on North Vietnamese Army/Viet Cong bases in eastern Cambodia, thisaerial campaign extending from May 1970 – August 1973.  U.S. bombing had actually startedone year earlier (under Operation Menu), in March 1969, in which Sihanouk mayhave given his tacit consent.  Thebombings were very intense, in total, over 500,000 tons of ordnance weredropped (equivalent to 30% of the 1.5 million tons of all bombs that U.S. planes dropped in Europeduring World War II).  Various estimatesplace the number of Cambodian civilian casualties caused by American bombing atbetween 40,000 and 150,000 killed.  The U.S. bombings, together with the groundfighting, destroyed much of eastern Cambodia,forcing hundreds of thousands of civilians to flee to Phnom Penh, the capital.  Phnom Penh soon grew to a population of 2 – 2½ million by1975, from 600,000 in 1970.

In April 1970, in a major offensive known as the CambodianCampaign, American and South Vietnamese forces crossed the border from South Vietnam into eastern Cambodia aimedat destroying North Vietnamese Army/Viet Cong military bases and supply depotsalong the Ho Chi Minh Trail.  The successof this operation was deemed crucial to the withdrawal of U.S. troops from South Vietnam in line with theAmerican de-escalation from the Vietnam War. In the Cambodian Campaign, American and South Vietnamese forces killedsome 10,000 North Vietnamese/Viet Cong troops, and destroyed enemy bases andcaptured large quantities of weapons and supplies in underground storagebunkers.  Even then, the operation wasonly partially successful, as most of the North Vietnamese/Viet Cong forces hadearlier fled deeper into Cambodia.

March 11, 1969 – Sino-Soviet Border Conflict: Demonstrators besiege the Soviet Embassy in Beijing in protest for the attack on the Chinese Embassy in Moscow

Fighting broke out between Soviet and Chinese units on on Damansky/ZhenbaoIsland on March 2, 1969.  Following thisincident, sensationalist news reports by the media stirred up the generalpopulation in both countries.  On March3, 1969 in Beijing,large protests were held outside the Soviet Embassy, and Soviet diplomaticpersonnel were harassed.  In the SovietUnion, demonstrations were held in Khabarovskand Vladivostok.  In Moscow,angry crowds hurled stones, ink bottles, and paint at the Chinese Embassy.

On March 11, 1969 in Beijing,demonstrators besieged the Soviet Embassy in protest for the attack on theChinese Embassy.  Then when Soviet mediareported that captured Russian soldiers during the Damansky/Zhenbao incidenthad been tortured and executed, and their bodies mutilated, largedemonstrations consisting of 100,000 people broke out in Moscow. Other mass assemblies also occurred in other Russian cities.

On March 15, 1969, a second (and larger) clash broke out inDamansky/Zhenbao Island, where both sides sent a force of regimental strength,or some 2,000-3,000 troops.  The Chineseclaimed that the Soviets fielded one motorized infantry battalion, one tankbattalion, and four heavy-artillery battalions, or a total of over 50 tanks andarmored vehicles, and scores of artillery pieces.  The two sides again claimed victory in the10-hour battle, and also accused the other side of firing the first shots.  Both sides suffered heavy casualties.

China had a long-standing border dispute with the Soviet Union, which was inherited by the Soviet Union’s successor states, Russia, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, and Tajikistan.

(Taken from Sino-Soviet Border Conflict – Wars of the 20th Century – Twenty Wars in Asia)

Background Historically,the communist parties of Russiaand Chinahad not had close ties, and were even hostile to each other.  During the early years of the ChineseCommunist Party, in 1923, the Soviet government under Vladimir Lenin encouragedthe Chinese communists to join the non-communist Kuomintang (Chinese Nationalists).  Then in World War II, Stalin urged Mao toform an alliance with Chiang Kai-shek to fight the Japanese.  In the 1930s, Mao began to view traditionalMarxism, like that applied in the Soviet Union, as relevant only in theindustrialized countries, and not consistent with China’s agricultural society.  Mao soon developed a new branch of Marxismcalled Maoism, which stated that in agricultural societies, the revolutionarystruggle should be led by the peasants.

In September 1963-July 1964, Mao published a series ofpapers condemning Khrushchev and Soviet policies.  In October 1964, Leonid Brezhnev succeeded asthe new leader of the Soviet Union, andoverturned some of the liberal reforms of his predecessor, although hegenerally continued to implement party policies.  Brezhnev adopted a hard-line stance on theWest, which did not lead to improved Sino-Soviet relations.  Instead, ties between the two communistcountries continued to decline.  By 1963,the Sino-Soviet split involved the long-standing territorial dispute along thetwo countries’ poorly defined 4,380-kilometer shared border.  In July 1964, Mao stated that the territoryof the Soviet Union was excessive, and that Soviet regions of Lake Baikal,Vladivostok, Khabarovsk,and Kamchatka formerly belonged to China.  Mao then said that Chinahad “not yet presented our bill for this list” to the Soviet Union.

Chinathen declared that two 19th century treaties with the Soviet Union, the Treatyof Aigun (1858) and the Convention of Peking (1860), were “unequal treaties”,in that the then ruling powerful Russian Empire had forced the war-weakenedChinese Qing Dynasty to cede one million square kilometers of territory inManchuria and Siberia to Russia.  Mao’s government also stated that throughother “unequal treaties” which the Qing court was forced to sign in the 19thcentury, China lost some 500,000 square kilometers of land in its westernborder, lands which now are part of the Soviet Union.

The Chinese government soon made the clarification that bybringing up the matter of “unequal treaties” with the Soviet Union, China didnot seek to reclaim these territories, but that it wanted the Soviet Union toacknowledge that the treaties indeed were unjust, and that the two sides mustnegotiate a final border agreement on the basis of present-day boundaries.  In this respect, for China, thedisputed territory amounted to only 35,000 square kilometers along the commonborder.  And of this figure, 34,000square kilometers were located in the western side bordering the Soviet SocialistRepublics of Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan,and Tajikistan.  Another 1,000 square kilometers were locatedalong the eastern side running along the length of three rivers: the Argun,Amur, and Ussuri (Figure 20).

Both the Treaty of Aigun and the Convention of Peking, whichcodified the border along the eastern side, stipulated that the Sino-Russianborder was located on the Chinese side running the whole length of the threerivers, thus giving the Russians full sovereignty along these rivers, includingthe many hundreds of islands located therein. Chinawanted to negotiate a readjustment of this river border, and proposed that thenew border line be placed at the midpoint of the rivers.  The Soviet Unionrejected any readjustments, stating that the existing treaties had alreadyfixed the border.

Furthermore, the Soviet Uniondenied that the 19th century treaties were “unequal treaties”, and countered bystating that the Chinese rulers themselves were territorially ambitious at thattime.  The Soviets also stated that inrecently signed land treaties between Chinaand the Soviet Union, Mao’s government had notbrought up the matter of the earlier “unequal treaties” in these areas, andthus constituted a tacit acknowledgment of Soviet sovereignty of theseareas.  In February 1964, the two sidesheld border talks, which collapsed later that year when Mao raised newcriticisms against the Soviet government.

Both sides now increased their forces at the border, raisingtensions.  The Soviet government alsostrengthened its relations with Mongolia(a socialist client state of the Soviet Union).  In January 1966, the two countries signed amilitary alliance that allowed Soviet troops to deploy in Mongolia tohelp defend the country against a possible Chinese attack.

In 1966, Mao launched the Cultural Revolution, where hepurged his political rivals and took full control of the Chinese CommunistParty.  But the Cultural Revolutionbrought widespread turmoil in China,and also exacerbated the ideological clash between Chinaand the Soviet Union, increasing tensionsbetween them.

In August 1968, the Soviet Union invaded Czechoslovakia,and overthrew the socialist government there that had tried to implementliberal reforms.  Mao saw this aggressionas one which the Soviets could potentially undertake against China.  By the mid-1960s, the Soviet-Chinese borderwas heavily militarized, and hundreds of skirmishes took place, which increasedin frequency in 1968 in the highly volatile eastern border region.  Soviet soldiers used physical force to removeChinese fishermen and worker groups, as well as Chinese military patrols, whichhad entered the river islands.  InJanuary 1968, China filed adiplomatic protest when Soviet troops attacked and killed Chinese workers in Qiliqin Island.

March 10, 1979 – Uganda-Tanzania War: Libyan forces repel a Tanzanian Army attack near the Lukaya Swamps

Ugandan leader General Idi Amin pleaded for assistance fromhis friend, Muammar Gaddafi, the Libyan leader. Gaddafi responded by dispatching 3,000 Libyan soldiers, supported withtanks, artillery, and some planes.  Ontheir arrival in Uganda,the Libyan force was sent directly to battle. On March 10, 1979, the Libyans threw back a Tanzanian force that wasadvancing toward the Lukaya Swamps.  Thefollowing day, two Tanzanian brigades attacked the Libyans from the north andsouth of Lukaya.  Caught by surprise, theLibyans were routed and broke out in a run.

The Tanzanians advanced unopposed through the Masaka-Kampala Roadand passed through towns and villages where large crowds welcomed them asliberators.  The Tanzanians capturedMpigi, as well as Entebbe,where the Libyans were overwhelmed after initially putting up some resistance.

On April 10, 1979, the Tanzanian Army entered and occupied Kampala, Uganda’scapital, practically ending the war except for some small-scale fighting thatwould continue for the next few months. General Amin earlier had fled into exile, first to Libya, and then Saudi Arabia, where he was welcomedas a guest by his friend, King Faisal I. General Amin would live in Saudi Arabia until his death in2003.

After the war, the remaining Libyan forces were allowed toleave Uganda, and departedby way of Kenya.  For a time, the Tanzanian Army remained in Uganda to carryout peace-keeping duties until security was restored, and to oversee theUgandan political system’s return to democracy.

However, Uganda’stransition to democracy was turbulent and wracked by bitter in-fighting and apower struggle among factions of the coalition that had helped to overthrowGeneral Amin.  Uganda, a country traditionallydivided by ethnic loyalties, saw the re-emergence of regional politicalaffiliations at the expense of a collective Ugandan nationalism.

In general elections held in December 1980, former PresidentObote returned to power by winning the presidential race.  But charges of election fraud, the fractiouspolitical climate, and the continued militarized environment after the war, ledto the formation of many armed groups that would lead the country into a newround of conflict, the Ugandan Bush War (nextarticle).

Uganda, Tanzania, and nearby countries.

(Taken from Uganda-Tanzania War – Wars of the 20th Century – Volume 3)

Background InJanuary 1971, Ugandan President Milton Obote was overthrown in a military coupwhile he was on a foreign mission. Fearing for his safety, he did not return to Ugandabut flew to Tanzania, Uganda’ssouthern neighbor, where Tanzanian President Julius Nyerere gave him politicalsanctuary.  President Nyerere’s action,however, was not well received by General Idi Amin, the leader of the Ugandancoup, and relations between the two countries deteriorated.

In Uganda,General Amin took over power and established a military dictatorship, and namedhimself the country’s president and head of the armed forces.  He carried out a purge of military elementsthat were perceived as loyal to the former regime.  As a result, thousands of officers andsoldiers were executed.  General Aminthen formed a clique of staunchly loyal military officers whom he promotedbased on devotion and subservience to his government rather than on merit andcompetence.  In lieu of local civiliangovernments, General Amin set up regional military commands led by an armyofficer who held considerable power. Corruption and inefficiency soon plagued all levels of government.

Military officers who had been bypassed or demoted fromtheir positions became disgruntled.  Manyof these officers, including thousands of soldiers, crossed the border to Tanzania andmet up with ex-President Obote and other exiled Ugandan leaders.  Together, they formed an armed rebel groupwhose aim was to overthrow General Amin. The rebels were well received by the Tanzanian government, whichprovided them with military and financial support.

In 1972, the rebels launched an attack in southern Uganda and came to within the town of Masaka where they triedto incite the local population to revolt against the Ugandan government.  No revolt took place, however.  General Amin sent his forces to Masaka, andin the fighting that followed, the rebels were thrown back across the border.

Ugandan planes pursued the rebels in northern Tanzania, butattacked the Tanzanian towns of Bukoba and Mwanza, causing somedestruction.  The Tanzanian governmentfiled a diplomatic protest and increased its forces in northern Tanzania.  Tensions rose between the two countries.Through mediation efforts of Somalia,however, war was averted and the two countries agreed to deescalate thetension, and withdrew their forces a distance of ten kilometers from theircommon border.

The insurgency provoked General Amin into intensifying hissuppressive policies, especially against the ethnic groups of his politicalenemies.  All social classes from theserival ethnicities were targeted, from businessmen, doctors, lawyers, and theclergy, to workers, peasants, and villagers. Even members of General Amin’s Cabinet and top military officers werenot spared.  General Amin’s secretpolice, called the State Research Bureau, carried out numerous summaryexecutions and forced disappearances, as well as tortures and arbitraryarrests.  During General Amin’seight-year reign in power, an estimated 300,000 to 500,000 Ugandans werekilled.

General Amin also expelled the ethnic South Asian communityfrom Uganda.  These South Asian Ugandans were thedescendants of contract workers from the Indian subcontinent who had beenbrought to Ugandaduring the British colonial period. South Asians comprised only 1% of the total population but werepredominantly merchants, traders, landowners, and industrialists who held adisproportionately large share of Uganda’s economy; other SouthAsians were wealthy professionals, held clerical jobs, or were tradesmen.

After the expulsion, the South Asians’ businesses andproperties were seized by the government and distributed to the generalpopulation in line with General Amin’s program of promoting the social andeconomic advancement of black Ugandans. However, many of the assets ended up being owned by General Amin’smilitary and political associates, most of whom had no knowledge of running abusiness.  Soon, most of these operationsfailed and closed down.

As a result, Uganda’seconomy deteriorated.  Poverty andunemployment soared, and basic commodities became non-existent or in very lowsupply.  Coffee beans, the country’s mainexport product, were required by law to be sold to the government.  But as the government failed to pay orunderpaid the farmers, the smuggling of coffee beans to nearby Kenya (whereprices were much higher) became widespread and carried out by farmers andtraders at the risk of a government-issued shoot-to-kill order againstviolators.  Eventually, however, coffeebean smuggling operations came under the control of the army commandersthemselves.

Initially, the Western media was fascinated by GeneralAmin’s idiosyncratic behavior and outrageous statements, making the Ugandanleader extremely popular in foreign news reports.  But as his brutal regime and human rightsrecord became known, Britainand the United States, both Uganda’straditional allies, distanced themselves and ended diplomatic relations withGeneral Amin’s government.  Uganda then turned to the Soviet Union, which soon became the Ugandan government’s main supplier ofweapons.  Ugandaalso strengthened military ties with Libyaand diplomatic relations with Saudi Arabia.

By 1978, Ugandahad become isolated diplomatically from much of the internationalcommunity.  Despite outward appearances,the government was experiencing growing dissent from within.  A year earlier, General Amin was nearlyousted in a coup carried out by high-ranking government officials, underscoringthe growing political opposition to his rule.

Then in November 1978, Uganda’s Vice-President, MustafaAdrisi, was wounded in a car accident, which might have been an assassinationattempt on his life.  Adrisi’s militarysupporters, which included some elite units, broke out in mutiny.

March 9, 1978 – Ogaden War: As Ethiopian-Cuban forces advance into the Ogaden, the Somalis withdraw from the region

Ethiopian-Cuban forces advanced toward the strategic Kara Marda Pass, where the Somalis had built a defensive line.  Bypassing the Pass through the north and then turning east, one Ethiopian-Cuban unit joined with another force approaching from the west to launch a pincers attack on the Somali defenders.  By early March 1978, the Ethiopian-Cuban forces had captured the Kara Marda Pass and were moving rapidly east toward the Ogaden plains.  As fears of an Ethiopian invasion of Somalia increased, on February 9, 1978, Somali President Barre issued a general mobilization and placed the country in a state of emergency.  In early March 1978, Ethiopian-Cuban forces attacked Jijiga, where remnants of the Somali Army-WSLF forces had organized a last major defense of the Ogaden.  But their lines quickly fell apart under the weight of the armored, artillery, and air attacks.  The Battle of Jijiga was a crushing defeat for the Somali Army, with some 3,000 soldiers killed.  On March 9, 1978, the Somali government ordered a general retreat from the Ogaden; by this time, however, the Somali Army, now abandoning their weapons and equipment in the field, and together with the WSLF fighters, and tens of thousands of civilians, were making a hasty, chaotic retreat toward the Somali border.  Further Ethiopian-Cuban advances across the Ogaden recaptured other areas: Degehabur (March 6), Filtu (March 8), Delo (March 12), and Kelafo (March 13).

The Ethiopian government now faced the enticing prospect ofadvancing right into Somalia.  Ultimately, the Soviet Union prevailed uponthe Ethiopian Derg regime to stop at the border; on March 23, 1978, with much ofthe fighting dying down, Ethiopiadeclared victory and the war over. Estimates of combat casualties are: over 6,000 killed and 10,000 woundedin the Ethiopian Army, and over 6,000 killed and 2,000 wounded in the SomaliArmy.  Some 400 Cubans and 30 Sovietsalso lost their lives.  A combined 50planes and over 300 tanks and armored vehicles also were destroyed.  Furthermore, some 750,000 Ogaden inhabitants(mainly ethnic Somali and Oromo) fled from their homes and ended up as refugeesin Somalia.

(Excerpts taken from Ogaden War – Wars of the 20th Century – Volume 4)

Background InDecember 1950, with Allied approval, the United Nations granted Italy a trusteeship over Italian Somaliland onthe condition that Italygrants the territory its independence within ten years.  On June 26, 1960, Britaingranted independence to British Somaliland, which became the State of Somaliland, and a few days later, Italy also granted independence to the TrustTerritory of Somaliland (the former Italian Somaliland).  On July 1, 1960, the two new states merged toform the Somali Republic(Somalia).

Greater Somalia.

The newly sovereign enlarged state had as its primaryforeign affairs mission the fulfillment of “Greater Somalia” (also known asPan-Somalism; Figure 29), an irredentist concept that sought to bring into aunited Somali state all ethnic Somalis in the Horn of Africa who currently wereresiding in neighboring foreign jurisdictions, i.e. the Ogaden region inEthiopia, Northern Frontier District (NFD) in Kenya, and FrenchSomaliland.  Somaliaofficially did not claim ownership to these foreign territories but desiredthat ethnic Somalis in these regions, particularly where they formed apopulation majority, be granted the right to decide their political future,i.e. to remain with these countries or to secede and merge with Somalia.

Nationalist Somalis in Kenyaand Ethiopia, desiring to bejoined with Somalia,soon launched guerilla insurgencies.  Inthe Ogaden region, many guerilla groups organized, the foremost of which wasthe Western Somali Liberation Front (WSLF), founded in 1960, just after Somaliagained its independence.  The Somali governmentbegan to build its armed forces, eventually setting as a goal a force of about20,000 troops that it deemed was powerful enough to realize the dream ofGreater Somalia.  But constrained byeconomic limitations, Somaliasought the assistance of various Western powers, particularly the United States, but the latter only promised toprovide military resources for a 5,000-strong armed forces, which it deemed wassufficient for Somaliato defend its borders against external threats.

The Somali government then turned to communist states,particularly the Soviet Union; although these countries’ Marxist ideology rancontrary to its own democratic institution, Somalia viewed this as a means tobe political self-reliant and not be too dependent on the West, and to courtboth sides in the Cold War.  Thus, fornearly two decades after gaining its independence, Somalia received military supportfrom both western and communist countries.

In 1962, the Soviet Union provided Somalia with asubstantial loan under generous terms of repayment, allowing the Somaligovernment to build in earnest an offense-oriented armed forces; subsequentSoviet loans and military assistance led to the perception in the internationalcommunity that Somalia fell under the Soviet sphere of influence, bolsteredfurther as Soviet planes, tanks, artillery pieces, and other military hardwarewere supplied in large quantities to the Somali Army Forces.

Tensions between Ethiopian security forces and the OgadenSomalis sporadically led to violence that soon deteriorated further with SomaliArmy units intervening, leading to border skirmishes between Ethiopian andSomali regular security units. Large-scale fighting by both sides finally brokeout in February 1964, which was triggered by a Somali revolt in June 1963 atHodayo.  Somali ground and air units camein support of the rebels but Ethiopian planes gained control of the skies andattacked frontier areas, including Feerfeer and Galcaio.  Under mediation efforts provided by Sudanrepresenting the Organization of African Unity (OAU), in April 1964, aceasefire was agreed that imposed a separation of forces and a demilitarizedzone on the border.  In the aftermath, inlate 1964, Ethiopia enteredinto a mutual defense treaty with Kenya (which also was facing arebellion by local ethnic Somalis supported by the Somali government) in caseof a Somali invasion; this treaty subsequently was renewed in 1980 and then in1987.

On October 21, 1969, a military coup overthrew Somalia’sdemocratically elected civilian government and in its place, a military juntacalled the Supreme Revolutionary Council (SRC) was set up and led by GeneralMohamed Siad Barre, who succeeded as president of the country.  The SRC suspended the constitution, bannedpolitical parties, and dissolved parliament, and ruled as a dictatorship.  The country was renamed the Somali DemocraticRepublic.  Exactly one year after thecoup, on October 21, 1970, President Barre declared the country a Marxiststate, although a form of syncretized ideology called “scientific revolution”was implemented, which combined elements of Marxism-Leninism, Islam, and Somalinationalism.  The SRC forged even closerdiplomatic and military ties with the Soviet Union,which led in July 1974 to the signing of the Treaty of Friendship andCooperation, where the Soviets increased military support to the SomaliArmy.  Earlier in 1972, under aSomali-Soviet agreement, the Russians developed the Somali port of Berbera,converting it into a large naval, air, and radar and communications facilitythat allowed the Soviets to project power into the Middle East, Red Sea, and Persian Gulf.  TheSoviets also established many new military airfields, including those in Mogadishu, Hargeisa,Baidoa, and Kismayo.

Under pressure from the Soviet government to form a“vanguard party” along Marxist lines, in July 1976, President Barre dissolvedthe SRC which he replaced with the Somali Revolutionary Socialist Party (SRSP),whose Supreme Council (politburo) formed the new government, with Barre as itsSecretary General.  The SRSP, as the solelegal party, was intended to be a civilian-run entity to replace themilitary-dominated SRC; however, since much of the SRC’s political hierarchysimply moved to the SRSP, in practice, not much changed in governance and Barrecontinued to rule as de facto dictator.

With a greatly enhanced Somali military capability,President Barre pressed irredentist aspirations for Greater Somalia, steppingup political rhetoric against Ethiopiaand spurning third-party mediations to resolve the emerging crisis.  Then in the mid-1970s, favorablecircumstances allowed Somaliato implement its irredentist ambitions. During the first half of 1974, widespread military and civilian unrestgripped Ethiopia,rendering the government powerless.  InSeptember 1974, a group of junior military officers called the “CoordinatingCommittee of the Armed Forces, Police, and Territorial Army”, which simply wasknown as “Derg” (an Ethiopian word meaning “Committee” or “Council”), seized powerafter overthrowing Ethiopia’s long-ruling aging monarch, Emperor HaileSelassie.  The Derg succeeded in power,dissolved the Ethiopian parliament and abolished the constitution, nationalizedrural and urban lands and most industries, ruled with absolute powers, andbegan Ethiopia’s gradual transition from an absolute monarchy to aMarxist-Leninist one-party state.

Ethiopiatraditionally was aligned with the West, with most of its military suppliessourced from the United States. But with its transition toward socialism, the Derg regime forged closerties with the Soviet Union, which led to thesigning in December 1976 of a military assistance agreement.  Simultaneously, Ethiopian-American relationsdeteriorated, and with U.S. President Jimmy Carter criticizing Ethiopia’s poorhuman rights record, in April 1977, the Derg repealed Ethiopia’s defense treatywith the United States, refused further American assistance, and expelled U.S.military personnel from the country.  Atthis point, both Ethiopiaand Somalialay within the Soviet sphere and thus ostensibly were on the same side in theCold War, but a situation that was unacceptable to President Barre with regardsto his ambitions for Greater Somalia.

In the aftermath of the Derg’s seizing power, Ethiopiaexperienced a period of great political and security unrest, as the governmentbattled Marxist groups in the White Terror and Red Terror, regionalinsurgencies that sought to secede portions of the country, and the Derg itselfracked by internal power struggles that threatened its own survival.  Furthermore, the Derg distrusted thearistocrat-dominated military establishment and purged the ranks of the officercorps; some 30% of the officers were removed (including 17 generals who wereexecuted in November 1974).  At thistime, the Ogaden insurgency, led by the WSLF and other groups, also increasedin intensity, with Ethiopian military outposts and government infrastructuressubject to rebel attacks.  Just a fewyears earlier, President Barre did not provide full military support to theOgaden rebels, encouraging them to seek a negotiated solution throughdiplomatic channels and even with Emperor Haile Selassie himself.  These efforts failed, however, and with Ethiopiasinking into crisis, President Barre saw his chance to step in.

March 8, 1978 – Ogaden War: Ethiopian-Cuban forces recapture Filtu

In March 1978, Ethiopian-Cuban forces continued theiradvance into the Ogaden region, recapturing other areas: Degehabur (March 6),Filtu (March 8), Delo (March 12), and Kelafo (March 13).

The Ethiopian government now faced the enticing prospect ofadvancing right into Somalia.  Ultimately, the Soviet Union prevailed uponthe Ethiopian Derg regime to stop at the border; on March 23, 1978, with muchof the fighting dying down, Ethiopiadeclared victory and the war over. Estimates of combat casualties in the Ogaden War are: over 6,000 killedand 10,000 wounded in the Ethiopian Army, and over 6,000 killed and 2,000wounded in the Somali Army.  Some 400Cubans and 30 Soviets also lost their lives. A combined 50 planes and over 300 tanks and armored vehicles also weredestroyed.  Furthermore, some 750,000Ogaden inhabitants (mainly ethnic Somali and Oromo) fled from their homes andended up as refugees in Somalia.

French Somaliland, British Somaliland, and Italian Somaliland.

(Excerpts taken from Ogaden War – Wars of the 20th Century – Volume 4)

Background InDecember 1950, with Allied approval, the United Nations granted Italy a trusteeship over Italian Somaliland onthe condition that Italygrants the territory its independence within ten years.  On June 26, 1960, Britaingranted independence to British Somaliland, which became the State of Somaliland, and a few days later, Italy also granted independence to the TrustTerritory of Somaliland (the former Italian Somaliland).  On July 1, 1960, the two new states merged toform the Somali Republic(Somalia).

Greater Somalia.

The newly sovereign enlarged state had as its primaryforeign affairs mission the fulfillment of “Greater Somalia” (also known asPan-Somalism; Figure 29), an irredentist concept that sought to bring into aunited Somali state all ethnic Somalis in the Horn of Africa who currently wereresiding in neighboring foreign jurisdictions, i.e. the Ogaden region inEthiopia, Northern Frontier District (NFD) in Kenya, and FrenchSomaliland.  Somaliaofficially did not claim ownership to these foreign territories but desiredthat ethnic Somalis in these regions, particularly where they formed apopulation majority, be granted the right to decide their political future,i.e. to remain with these countries or to secede and merge with Somalia.

Nationalist Somalis in Kenyaand Ethiopia, desiring to bejoined with Somalia,soon launched guerilla insurgencies.  Inthe Ogaden region, many guerilla groups organized, the foremost of which wasthe Western Somali Liberation Front (WSLF), founded in 1960, just after Somaliagained its independence.  The Somaligovernment began to build its armed forces, eventually setting as a goal aforce of about 20,000 troops that it deemed was powerful enough to realize thedream of Greater Somalia.  Butconstrained by economic limitations, Somaliasought the assistance of various Western powers, particularly the United States, but the latter only promised toprovide military resources for a 5,000-strong armed forces, which it deemed wassufficient for Somaliato defend its borders against external threats.

The Somali government then turned to communist states,particularly the Soviet Union; although these countries’ Marxist ideology rancontrary to its own democratic institution, Somalia viewed this as a means tobe political self-reliant and not be too dependent on the West, and to courtboth sides in the Cold War.  Thus, fornearly two decades after gaining its independence, Somalia received military supportfrom both western and communist countries.

In 1962, the Soviet Union provided Somalia with asubstantial loan under generous terms of repayment, allowing the Somaligovernment to build in earnest an offense-oriented armed forces; subsequentSoviet loans and military assistance led to the perception in the internationalcommunity that Somalia fell under the Soviet sphere of influence, bolsteredfurther as Soviet planes, tanks, artillery pieces, and other military hardwarewere supplied in large quantities to the Somali Army Forces.

Tensions between Ethiopian security forces and the OgadenSomalis sporadically led to violence that soon deteriorated further with SomaliArmy units intervening, leading to border skirmishes between Ethiopian andSomali regular security units. Large-scale fighting by both sides finally brokeout in February 1964, which was triggered by a Somali revolt in June 1963 atHodayo.  Somali ground and air units camein support of the rebels but Ethiopian planes gained control of the skies andattacked frontier areas, including Feerfeer and Galcaio.  Under mediation efforts provided by Sudanrepresenting the Organization of African Unity (OAU), in April 1964, aceasefire was agreed that imposed a separation of forces and a demilitarizedzone on the border.  In the aftermath, inlate 1964, Ethiopia enteredinto a mutual defense treaty with Kenya (which also was facing arebellion by local ethnic Somalis supported by the Somali government) in caseof a Somali invasion; this treaty subsequently was renewed in 1980 and then in1987.

On October 21, 1969, a military coup overthrew Somalia’sdemocratically elected civilian government and in its place, a military juntacalled the Supreme Revolutionary Council (SRC) was set up and led by GeneralMohamed Siad Barre, who succeeded as president of the country.  The SRC suspended the constitution, bannedpolitical parties, and dissolved parliament, and ruled as a dictatorship.  The country was renamed the Somali DemocraticRepublic.  Exactly one year after thecoup, on October 21, 1970, President Barre declared the country a Marxiststate, although a form of syncretized ideology called “scientific revolution”was implemented, which combined elements of Marxism-Leninism, Islam, and Somalinationalism.  The SRC forged even closerdiplomatic and military ties with the Soviet Union,which led in July 1974 to the signing of the Treaty of Friendship andCooperation, where the Soviets increased military support to the SomaliArmy.  Earlier in 1972, under aSomali-Soviet agreement, the Russians developed the Somali port of Berbera,converting it into a large naval, air, and radar and communications facilitythat allowed the Soviets to project power into the Middle East, Red Sea, and Persian Gulf.  TheSoviets also established many new military airfields, including those in Mogadishu, Hargeisa,Baidoa, and Kismayo.

Under pressure from the Soviet government to form a“vanguard party” along Marxist lines, in July 1976, President Barre dissolvedthe SRC which he replaced with the Somali Revolutionary Socialist Party (SRSP),whose Supreme Council (politburo) formed the new government, with Barre as itsSecretary General.  The SRSP, as the solelegal party, was intended to be a civilian-run entity to replace themilitary-dominated SRC; however, since much of the SRC’s political hierarchysimply moved to the SRSP, in practice, not much changed in governance and Barrecontinued to rule as de facto dictator.

With a greatly enhanced Somali military capability,President Barre pressed irredentist aspirations for Greater Somalia, steppingup political rhetoric against Ethiopiaand spurning third-party mediations to resolve the emerging crisis.  Then in the mid-1970s, favorablecircumstances allowed Somaliato implement its irredentist ambitions. During the first half of 1974, widespread military and civilian unrestgripped Ethiopia,rendering the government powerless.  InSeptember 1974, a group of junior military officers called the “CoordinatingCommittee of the Armed Forces, Police, and Territorial Army”, which simply wasknown as “Derg” (an Ethiopian word meaning “Committee” or “Council”), seizedpower after overthrowing Ethiopia’s long-ruling aging monarch, Emperor HaileSelassie.  The Derg succeeded in power,dissolved the Ethiopian parliament and abolished the constitution, nationalizedrural and urban lands and most industries, ruled with absolute powers, andbegan Ethiopia’s gradual transition from an absolute monarchy to aMarxist-Leninist one-party state.

Ethiopiatraditionally was aligned with the West, with most of its military suppliessourced from the United States. But with its transition toward socialism, the Derg regime forged closerties with the Soviet Union, which led to thesigning in December 1976 of a military assistance agreement.  Simultaneously, Ethiopian-American relationsdeteriorated, and with U.S. President Jimmy Carter criticizing Ethiopia’s poorhuman rights record, in April 1977, the Derg repealed Ethiopia’s defense treatywith the United States, refused further American assistance, and expelled U.S.military personnel from the country.  Atthis point, both Ethiopiaand Somalialay within the Soviet sphere and thus ostensibly were on the same side in theCold War, but a situation that was unacceptable to President Barre with regardsto his ambitions for Greater Somalia.

In the aftermath of the Derg’s seizing power, Ethiopiaexperienced a period of great political and security unrest, as the governmentbattled Marxist groups in the White Terror and Red Terror, regionalinsurgencies that sought to secede portions of the country, and the Derg itselfracked by internal power struggles that threatened its own survival.  Furthermore, the Derg distrusted thearistocrat-dominated military establishment and purged the ranks of the officercorps; some 30% of the officers were removed (including 17 generals who wereexecuted in November 1974).  At thistime, the Ogaden insurgency, led by the WSLF and other groups, also increasedin intensity, with Ethiopian military outposts and government infrastructuressubject to rebel attacks.  Just a fewyears earlier, President Barre did not provide full military support to theOgaden rebels, encouraging them to seek a negotiated solution throughdiplomatic channels and even with Emperor Haile Selassie himself.  These efforts failed, however, and with Ethiopiasinking into crisis, President Barre saw his chance to step in.

March 7, 1945 – World War II: U.S. forces seize the Ludendorff Bridge on the Rhine River

General Dwight D. Eisenhower and the Allied High Commandbelieved that attempting to cross the Rhine ona broad front would lead to heavy losses in personnel, and so they planned toconcentrate Allied resources to force a crossing on the north in the Britishsector.  Here also lay the shortest routeto Berlin,whose capture was definitely the greatest prize of the war.  Beating out the Soviets to Berlin was greatly desired by Prime MinisterChurchill and the British High Command, which at this point, the British andAmerican planners believed could be achieved. With Allied focus on the British sector in the north, U.S. 12th and6th Army Groups to the south were tasked with making secondary attacks in theirsectors, tying down German troops there and thus aiding the British offensive.

Then on March 7, 1945, elements of U.S. 1st Army (part of U.S. 12th Army Group), upon reaching the Rhine’s west bank at Remagen, came upon a railroad bridgethat was still standing and undefended. The Americans, taking advantage of this unexpected opportunity, rushed25,000 troops in six divisions and large numbers of tanks and artillery piecesto the other side before the bridge collapsed on March 17.  By then, U.S. 1st Army had built two tacticalbridges, and had established a secure bridgehead on the eastern side some 40 kmwide and 15 km long.  The Germans, duringtheir retreat, had systematically destroyed the fifty bridges across the wholelength of the Rhine, but had failed to detonate the charges on the Remagen Bridge.

Battle for the Rhine River.

(Taken from Defeat of Germany in the West: 1944-1945 – Wars of the 20th Century – World War II in Europe)

On March 22, 1945, U.S. Third Army also crossed the Rhine, at Oppenheim and soon at two other points furthernorth.  General Patton, the U.S. 3rd Armycommander, had rushed the crossings with little preparations, purposely to denyhis rival General Montgomery the honor of being the first to force an opposedcrossing of the Rhine.  To the south, U.S. 7th Army crossed at Worms and the French at Germersheim.

On March 23, 1945, General Montgomery and 21st Army Grouplaunched Operation Plunder, the forcing of the Rhine at Rees, Wesel,and south of the Lippe River.  As was typical with General Montgomery, theoperation was launched after thorough preparation and heavy concentration offorces.  The offensive was made with thelargest airborne assault in history (Operation Varsity, involving 16,000 Alliedparatroopers in 3,000 planes and gliders), and massive air and artillerybombardment of German positions before the amphibious crossing of the Rhine by the ground forces.  The operation was a great success,overwhelming the German defenders.  Bylate March 1945, the Allies had established a chain of bridgeheads on the Rhine’s eastern bank and were threatening to break outinto the German heartland.

On March 28, 1945, General Eisenhower announced that thecapture of Berlinwas not anymore the main goal of the Western Allies, for the followingreasons.  First, the Soviet Red Armywould clearly reach Berlin first, as it waspoised at the Oder River just 30 miles (48 km) of the German capital,while the Western Allies at the Rhine were over 300 miles (480 km) from Berlin.  Second, the breakthrough in the south wouldallow the Western Allies, particularly the U.S.forces, to rapidly fan out into the heart of Germany, which would break Germanmorale and bring a quick end to the war. Third, SHAEF priority was now to capture the Ruhr region, Germany’s industrial heartland, to destroyGerman’s weapons production facilities and incapacitate Germany’sability to continue the war.

Under these revised objectives, the three Allied Army Groupsadvanced into Germany andthen into Central Europe.  In the north, the British advanced toward Hamburg and the ElbeRiver, and met up with Soviet forcesat Wismar in the Baltic coast on May 2, 1945,while the Canadians secured the Netherlandsand northern German coast.  To the southof the British, on March 7, U.S.9th and 1st Armies attacked the Ruhr region ina pincers movement, leading to the last large-scale battle in the WesternFront.  On April 4, the pincers closed,and U.S. forcessystematically destroyed the trapped German Army Group B inside the Ruhr pocket.  OnApril 21, the pocket was cleared and the Americans captured over 300,000 Germansoldiers, this unexpected massive German defeat surprising the Allied HighCommand.  As a result of thiscatastrophe, German Army Group B commander General Walther Model committedsuicide, while concerted German defense of the Western Front effectivelyceased.  Other elements of U.S. 9th and 1st Armies had also advancedfurther east, and on April 25, 1945, contact was made between American andSoviet forces at the Elbe River.

Further to the south, General Patton’s 3rd Army advancedinto western Czechoslovakiaand southeast for eastern Bavaria and northernAustria.  U.S.6th Army Group (U.S. 7thArmy and the French Army) turned south into Bavaria,Austria, and northern Italy, with the isolated German garrisons at Heilbronn, Nuremberg, and Munich putting up somestiff resistance before surrendering.

On April 30, 1945, Hitler committed suicide, and three dayslater, Berlinfell to the Red Army.  As per Hitler’slast will and testament, governmental powers of the now crumbling German statepassed on to Admiral Karl Doenitz, head of the German Navy, who at once tooksteps to end the war.  On May 2, Germanforces in Italy and western Austria surrendered to the British, and two dayslater, the Wehrmacht in northwest Germany,the Netherlands and Denmark surrendered, also to the British, whileon May 5, German forces in Bavaria andsouthwest Germanysurrendered to the Americans.  At thistime, isolated German units facing the Soviets were desperately trying to fighttheir way to Western Allied lines, hoping to escape the punitive wrath of theRussians by surrendering to the Americans or British.

On May 7, 1945, General Alfred Jodl, German Armed ForcesChief of Operations, signed the instrument of unconditional surrender of allGerman forces at Allied headquarters in Reims, France.  A few hours later, Stalin expressed hisdisapproval of certain aspects of the surrender document, as well as itslocation, and on his insistence, another signing of Germany’s unconditionalsurrender was held in Berlin by General Wilhelm Keitel, chief of German ArmedForces, with particular attention placed on the Soviet contribution, and infront of General Zhukov, whose forces had captured the German capital.

Shortly thereafter, most of the remaining German unitssurrendered to nearby Allied commands, including Army Group Courland in the“Courland Pocket”, Second Army Heiligenbeil and Danzig beachheads, German unitson the Hel Peninsula in the Vistula delta, Greek islands of Crete, Rhodes, andthe Dodecanese, on Alderney Island in the English Channel, and in AtlanticFrance at Saint-Nazaire, La Rochelle, and Lorient.

March 6, 1975 – Iran-Iraq War: The Algiers Accord is signed, where Iran and Iraq settle their border dispute

By the early 1970s, the autonomy-seeking Iraqi Kurds wereholding talks with the Iraqi government after a decade-long war (the FirstIraqi-Kurdish War, separate article);negotiations collapsed and fighting broke out in April 1974, with the IraqiKurds being supported militarily by Iran. In turn, Iraq incitedIran’sethnic minorities to revolt, particularly the Arabs in Khuzestan, IranianKurds, and Baluchs.  Direct fightingbetween Iranian and Iraqi forces also broke out in 1974-1975, with the Iraniansprevailing.  Hostilities ended when thetwo countries signed the Algiers Accord on March 6, 1975, where Iraq yielded to Iran’sdemand that the midpoint of the Shatt al-Arab was the common border; inexchange, Iranended its support to the Iraqi Kurds.

Iraq wasdispleased with the Shatt concessions and to combat Iran’s growing regional militarypower, embarked on its own large-scale weapons buildup (using its oil revenues)during the second half of the 1970s. Relations between the two countries remained stable, however, and evenenjoyed a period of rapprochement.  As aresult of Iran’s assistancein helping to foil a plot to overthrow the Iraqi government, Saddam expelledAyatollah Khomeini, who was living as an exile in Iraq and from where the Iraniancleric was inciting Iranians to overthrow the Iranian government.

Iran, Iraq, and nearby countries.

(Taken from Iran-Iraq War – Wars of the 20th Century – Volume 4)

Background(continued) However, Iranian-Iraqi relations turned for the worse towardsthe end of 1979 when Ayatollah Khomeini was proclaimed as Iran’s absolute ruler.  Each of the two rival countries resumedsecessionist support for the various ethnic groups in the other country.  Iran’s transition to a full IslamicState was opposed by the various Iranian ethnic minorities, leading to revoltsby Kurds, Arabs, and Baluchs.  TheIranian government easily crushed these uprisings, except in Kurdistan,where Iraqi military support allowed the Kurds to fend off Iranian governmentforces until late 1981 before also being put down.

Ayatollah Khomeini, in line with his aim of spreadingIslamic revolutions across the Middle East, called on Iraq’s Shiitemajority to overthrow Saddam and his “un-Islamic” government, and establish anIslamic State.  In April 1980, a spate ofviolence attributed to the Islamic Dawa Party, an Iran-supported militantgroup, broke out in Iraq,where many Baath Party officers were killed and other high-ranking governmentofficials barely escaped assassination attempts.  In response, the Iraqi government unleashedrepressive measures against radical Shiites, including deporting thousands whowere thought to be ethnic Persians, as well as executing Grand AyatollahMohammad Baqir al-Sadr, which drew widespread condemnation from several Muslimcountries as the religious cleric was highly regarded in the wider Islamiccommunity.

Throughout the summer of 1980, many border clashes broke outbetween forces of the two countries, increasing in intensity and frequency bySeptember of that year.  As to theofficial start of the war, the two sides have different interpretations.  The Iraqis cite September 4, 1980, when theIranian Army carried out an artillery bombardment of Iraqi border towns,prompting Saddam two weeks later to unilaterally repeal the 1975 Algiers Accordand declare that the whole Shatt al-Arab lay within the territorial limits of Iraq.

September 22, 1980, however, is generally accepted as thestart of the war, when Iraqi forces launched a full-scale air and groundoffensive into Iran.  Saddam believed that his forces were capableof achieving a quick victory, his confidence borne by the following factors,all resulting from the Iranian Revolution. First, as previously mentioned, Iranfaced regional insurgencies from its ethnic minorities that opposed Iran’s adoptionof Islamic fundamentalism.  Second, Iran furtherwas wracked by violence and unrest when secularist elements of the revolution(liberal democrats, communists, merchants and landowners, etc.) opposed theIslamist hardliners’ rise to power.  TheIslamic state subsequently marginalized these groups and suppressed all formsof dissent.  Third, the revolutionseriously weakened the powerful Iranian Armed Forces, as military elements,particularly high-ranking officers, who remained loyal to the Shah, was purgedand repressive measures were undertaken to curb the military.  Fourth, Iran’s newly established Islamicgovernment, because it rejected both western democracy and communist ideology,became isolated internationally, even among Arab and Muslim countries.

Because of the United States’ support for Iran’s previousregime and in response to the U.S. government’s allowing the ailing Shah toseek medical treatment in the United States, hundreds of radical Iranianstudents broke into the U.S. Embassy in Tehran on November 4, 1979 and tookhostage over sixty American diplomatic personnel and citizens.  (This event, known as the Iran hostagecrisis, ended on January 20, 1981 when the 52 remaining hostages werereleased.)  In response, the United States ended diplomatic, economic, andlater, military relations with Iran,and imposed economic sanctions and military restrictions.  These U.S.sanctions were detrimental to Iran,in particular with regards to the coming war with Iraq,as the weapons and military hardware of the Iranian Armed Forces were sourcedfrom the United States.

Saddam wanted to make Iraqthe dominant power in the Middle East, a position traditionally held by Egypt but which Egyptian President Anwar Sadathad yielded politically after signing a peace agreement with Israel in March1979.  Iraq’s military buildup had, by thestart of the war, boasted some 200,000 soldiers, 2,700 tanks, 1,000 artillerypieces, and 330 planes.  By contrast,Iranian forces consisted of 150,000 soldiers, 1,700 tanks, 1,000 artillerypieces, and 440 planes.

Foreign Support Thewar saw the involvement of the two major superpowers, as both the United States and the Soviet Union, in the Cold War context, sought to gain favorablepolitical, military, and economic outcomes from the conflict.  The Soviet Union, long a supplier of militaryweapons to Iraq, backedSaddam, and also sought (unsuccessfully) to establish close ties with Iran.  The United States initially was averse to both sides of the war,viewing Iraq as a Sovietsatellite and an enemy of Israel,and Iranas an anti-American fanatical Islamic state. With the breakdown of relations with Iranresulting from the Tehran hostage crisis, the United States threw its support (somewhatambivalently) behind Iraq.

Like the United States,Persian Gulf monarchies were disinclined toward either side in the war,opposing Iraq’s powerambitions and loathing Iraneven more, because of Ayatollah Khomeini’s view that monarchical governmentswere un-Islamic, and encouraged their overthrow.  But with Irantaking the military initiative by 1982, the Gulf monarchies, particularly Saudi Arabia, Kuwait,and the United Arab Emirates,became alarmed at a potential Iranian victory and released large sums of money,by way of loans, to Iraq.  Israelalso was averse to either side, as both countries held anti-Zionist policies,but ultimately supported Iran,viewing the Iraqi government’s more pronounced military involvement in theArab-Israeli wars as the bigger threat.

Very few other countries were inclined to support Iran, which wasconsidered an outcast in the international community and, throughout the comingwar, would experience difficulty procuring weapons and spare parts for itsAmerican-made military equipment.  MostArab League states backed predominantly Arab Iraq against “Persian” (i.e.non-Arab) Iran.  However, two Arab countries, Syria and Libya,backed and militarily supported Iran.  Syriaand Iraq had a long historyof mutual distrust, while Libya,an enemy of Iran’s deposedShah, had welcomed the Iranian Revolution and established close ties with Iran’s Islamicgovernment.  North Korea also sold weapons to Iran.  Many other countries (e.g. China, the Soviet Union, Yugoslavia, Portugal, etc.), directly orthrough third-party arms dealers, sold weapons to both sides of the war.

Between 1985 and 1987, in an elaborate clandestinetransaction, the United Statesprovided weapons to Iran inexchange for the release of American hostages in Lebanon.  This event, known as the Iran-Contra Affair,generated a breach in U.S.laws and led to a number of United StatesCongressional investigations involving high-level U.S. administration officials.

War An escalationof hostilities, including artillery exchanges and air attacks, took place inthe period preceding the outbreak of war. On September 22, 1980, Iraqopened a full-scale offensive into Iranwith its air force launching strikes on ten key Iranian airbases, a move aimedat duplicating Israel’sdevastating and decisive air attacks at the start of the Six-Day War in1967.  However, the Iraqi air attacksfailed to destroy the Iranian air force on the ground as intended, as Iranianplanes were protected by reinforced hangars. In response, Iranian planes took to the air and carried out retaliatoryattacks on Iraq’svital military and public infrastructures.

Throughout the war, the two sides launched many air attackson the other’s economic infrastructures, in particular oil refineries anddepots, as well as oil transport facilities and systems, in an attempt todestroy the other side’s economic capacity. Both Iran and Iraq weretotally dependent on their oil industries, which constituted their main sourceof revenues.  The oil infrastructureswere nearly totally destroyed by the end of the war, leading to the nearcollapse of both countries’ economies.  Iraq was much more vulnerable, because of itslimited outlet to the sea via the Persian Gulf,which served as its only maritime oil export route.

Iran,which possessed a powerful navy, imposed a naval blockade around the PersianGulf, effectively land-locking Iraq,while Syria, Iran’s ally, closed down the Kirkuk-Banias oilpipeline, through which Iraqexported its petroleum via Syria.  Iraqwas left with the Kirkuk-Ceyhan outlet through Turkey,which also became vulnerable to attack later in the war when Iraqi Kurds ofnorthern Iraq rose up inrebellion and became allied with Iran in the war.

Together with its air attacks on the first day of the war,Iraqi ground forces launched simultaneous offensives along three fronts: north,central, and south.  The northern frontadvanced east of Sulaymaniyah, aimed at protecting northern Iraq’s vital installations, including the Kirkuk oil fields andDarbandikhan Dam.  The central front alsowas strategically defensive and consisted of two operations, one in the norththat advanced and successfully took Qasr-e Shirin toward the approaches of theZagros Mountains, intended to guard the Baghdad-Tehran Highway; and one in thesouth that occupied Mehran, an important junction in Iran’snorth-south road near the border with Iraq.

The southern front was the focus of the invasion, where fiveIraqi divisions attacked the petroleum resource-rich Iranian province of Khuzestan,which generated 90% of Iran’soil production.  Iraqi forces usedbridging equipment to cross the Shatt al-Arab and once on the Iranian side ofthe river, met little opposition and thus made rapid progress towardKhoramshahr and Susangerd.  Iran was caughtoff-guard by the invasion and had stationed only an undermanned force to defendKhuzestan.

March 5, 1906 – Moro Rebellion: U.S. forces storm Moro fortresses in the Battle of Bud Dajo

In Jolo, thousands of Moros, including women and children, and led by a fugitive named Pala (who was wanted by British authorities in Borneo) set up fortifications at Bud (Mount) Dajo, an extinct volcano five miles south of Jolo.  In March 1906, U.S. forces stormed these fortresses in the encounter known as the Battle of Bud Dajo, resulting in perhaps all 900–1,000 Moros killed; U.S. Army casualties were 21 killed and 75 wounded.

The Philippines in Southeast Asia.

American colonial authorities in the Philippines tried to suppress information in theUnited States regarding theBattle of Bud Dajo, but details of the encounter that surfaced in U.S. news services generated outrage from theAmerican public and a firestorm of controversy that reached the top levels ofthe U.S.government.  Particularly alarming wasthe report that the “wanton slaughter” of Moro women and children had takenplace.  Legislators of the oppositionDemocratic Party condemned General Wood’s conduct of the battle, and putpressure on President Theodore Roosevelt. The U.S. Congress asked the War Department to turn in the battlefieldreports from the Bud Dajo operation. Nevertheless, the Republican Party stood behind General Wood, whilemilitary authorities explained that the presence of women and children in theMoro cotas during the battle naturally led to high civilian casualties, andthat the women were armed and fought alongside the men, and that the Moros usedtheir children as “human shields”.

Luzon, Visayas, and Mindanao comprise the three geographical regions of modern-day Philippines.

(Taken from Moro Rebellion – Wars of the 20th Century – Twenty Wars in Asia)

The Moros Duringmuch of its colonization of the islands, Spainwas unable to bring under its control the southern part of the Philippinearchipelago, comprising the main island of Mindanao and, to itswest, the Sulu Archipelago.  A greatmajority of the native population in these regions was Muslim, whom the Spanishcalled “Moros”, a term they originally ascribed to North African Muslims whoinvaded and occupied the Iberian Peninsulafrom the 8th to 15th centuries. Pre-occupation with the Galleon Trade, inadequate military resources,irresoluteness, and the difficulty of converting Muslims prevented Spain from penetrating the vast, hostileinterior of Mindanao.  The Spanish did launch a number of operationsin Moroland, and although they achieved victory in battle as a result ofsuperior firepower, these attacks ultimately were not successful in totallysubduing the Moros.

Mindanao and Sulu archipelago.

The Moros practiced slavery, and launched slave-raidingattacks using swift war boats on the Christian towns and villages, particularlyin the Visayas, and also in Luzon, and carriedoff the inhabitants of these areas into slavery.  The Moros plundered settlements, and burnedhouses, churches, and buildings.  In the18th century, Moro raids were taking a heavy toll on Spanish resources as aresult of the destruction and also the great cost to rebuild the communities,livelihoods, and infrastructures of the affected areas.

In reprisal for these attacks, the Spanish launched punitiveexpeditions in Moro areas, which in turn, incited reciprocal attacks from theMoros, leading to a constant cycle of raids and counter-raids.  By the 17th to early 18th centuries, aperennial state of war existed between Spanish-controlled Luzon and theVisayas, and Moro-dominated Mindanao andSulu.  This period coincided with thereign of Sultan Kudarat, who greatly extended the territories of the Sultanateof Maguindanao to include much of present-day Mindanaothrough alliances with other sultanates and other Moro tribes.  In general, however, the Moros, who comprisedmany diverse ethnic groups, did not form a united front against the Spaniards;in fact, the various Moro city-states were sworn enemies, and fought theSpanish, as they did each other.

In the mid-19th century, Spain introduced steam-poweredships to the Sulu Archipelago, which finally stopped the Moro piraticalattacks.  The Spanish vessels greatlyoutmatched the Moro war boats in speed and power.  The Spanish also attacked Moro pirate lairs,and imposed a naval blockade of Jolo, preventing Moros from bringing infirearms from abroad.  By the late 1870s,Moro piracy was quelled.  At this timealso, the Spanish were able to establish several coastal garrisons in Mindanao, from where they launched military expeditionson Moro fortified settlements (called “cotas”) in the island’s interior,particularly against the powerful Maguindanao and Lanao sultanates.

Earlier in 1848 and 1851, Spanish forces attacked Jolo, theseat of the Sulu Sultanate.  The SuluSultan was forced to move his capital to another section of the island, whichallowed the Spanish Army to establish a garrison in Jolo.  In 1876, the Spanish Army, assembling a largeforce of 9,000 soldiers and a fleet of gunboats, attacked Jolo again, this timedecisively defeating the forces of the Sulu Sultan.  The Spanish then gained full control of Jolo Island.

In July 1878, Spain and the Sulu Sultanate signeda peace treaty called the “Bases of Peace and Capitulation”, which differed intranslations between the Spanish and Sultanate’s versions.  In the former’s version, Spain was granted full sovereignty over theSultanate and its territory (i.e. the Sultanate, as a sovereign politicalentity, ceased to exist), while in the latter’s version, the Sultanate was aprotectorate of Spain(i.e. it retained its sovereignty, but was under Spanish protection).  In March 1885, Britain,Germany, and Spain, desiring to define their territorialjurisdictions and spheres of interests, signed the Madrid Protocol, whichstipulated that the Philippine Islands, including Mindanao and the SuluArchipelago, was officially recognized as belonging to Spain.

By the time of the Philippine Revolution (in August 1896)and later the United States involvement in the Philippines during theSpanish-American War (May 1898), Spain was in the process of consolidating itsauthority in the Sulu Archipelago, and had established in Mindanao a number ofgarrisons (in Jolo, Zamboanga, Iligan, Cagayan, Surigao, Cotabato, Davao, etc.)from where they launched expeditions against the Moros in the interior.  In these coastal areas, Christian settlementsalso were established, as Spanish authorities encouraged the native Christiansfrom Luzon and the Visayas to resettle in Mindanao.  While most of the Moro sultanates and smallercity-states resisted the Spanish intrusions, a number of Moro chieftains wereco-opted to work with the Spanish, and even to fight defiant Moro sultans anddatus.

In December 1898, Spainand the United States endedtheir state of war with the signing of the Treaty of Paris, where Spain ceded to the United States the Philippines(as well as Cuba, PuertoRico, and Guam).  Filipino revolutionaries in Luzon and theVisayas, who had been fighting an independence war against Spain since 1896, then declared war on the United States,resulting in the three-year Philippine-American War (June 1899 – July1902).  The U.S. colonial authorities,preoccupied with the war in the north against the Filipino revolutionaries,applied a policy of non-interference with the Moros in the south in order tonot be embroiled simultaneously in two wars. However, U.S. Army units occupied the former Spanish coastal garrisonsin Mindanao and Sulu.

In August 1899, the United States and the Sulu Sultanatesigned the Bates Agreement (named after U.S. General John Bates, who negotiatedfor the U.S. government), where the United States established a protectorateover the Sulu Sultanate in exchange for allowing the Moros to maintain theirlocal autonomy, laws, religion and culture. Slavery, which was widely practiced by the Moros, was tacitly tolerated,but would become a contributory factor to the coming war between the United Statesand the Moro people.

By mid-1902, the Philippine-American War was winding down,and the U.S. Army quelled the last major Filipino revolutionary resistance in Luzon and the Visayas. By this time, conflict with the Moros in southern Philippinesalso had broken out.  Imminent victory inthe north also allowed the U.S.military to move more troops to the south to confront the Moros, whom the U.S. governmentnow was determined to bring under its full authority.  In July 1902, the U.S. War Departmentannounced that the war with the Filipino revolutionaries was over, but this didnot extend to Moroland as stipulated in Proclamation 483 issued by U.S.President Theodore Roosevelt, who declared that “…the insurrection against theauthority and sovereignty of the United States is now at an end, and peace hasbeen established in all parts of the archipelago except in the countryinhabited by the Moro tribes, to which this proclamation does not apply”.

March 4, 1913 – First Balkan War: Greek and Ottoman forces clash at the Battle of Bizani

The Greek Army of Epirus, having been reinforced to 41,000soldiers, began its offensive on Iaonnina. On March 6, 1913, the Greeks broke through the Ottoman lines at Bizaniafter three days of fighting. Iaonnina fell soon thereafter.  The Greek Army then advanced north, capturingsections of southern Albania.

On April 20, 1913, peace negotiations in London resumed.  This time, the European powers (Britain, France,Germany, Austria-Hungary, Italy,and Russia)applied strong pressure, forcing the warring sides to accept a preparedagreement (the Treaty of London), which was signed on May 30, 1913 andofficially ended the war.  The treaty’smost important provision forced the Ottoman Empireto cede to the Balkan League all European territory west of the Enos-MidiaLine.

The Ottoman government complied and withdrew its forces fromthe Balkans, thus ending nearly five centuries of Ottoman rule in practicallyall of Europe. After further deliberations and under strong insistence of Austria-Hungary and Italy,on July 29, 1913, the European powers agreed to recognize the independence of Albania, where local Albanian nationalists hadpreviously (on November 28, 1912) declared the province’s secession from the Ottoman Empire.  Asa result, Serbia, Greece, and Montenegrowithdrew their forces from occupied areas in Albania, again after beingstrong-armed diplomatically by the European powers.

The partitioning of other Balkan territories was left to thediscretion of the Balkan League. Nevertheless, the unexpected birth of the Albanian state disrupted theSerbian-Bulgarian pre-war secret partition agreement of the Balkan region.  In particular, Bulgaria was disappointed atits less than expected territorial gains in the war, more so in relation toGreece whose forces had performed exceedingly (and surprisingly) well, and hadgained a larger share of the conquered territories in southern Macedonia thatotherwise would have been won by Bulgaria. For this reason, Bulgariaput pressure on Serbia and Greece to turnover some of the conquered territories, which the latter two refused.

The stage thus was set for the resumption of hostilities,the Second Balkan War.

(Taken from First Balkan War – Wars of the 20th Century – Volume 3)

Background of theFirst Balkan War At the start of the twentieth century, the Ottoman Empirewas a spent force, a shadow of its former power of the fifteenth and sixteenthcenturies that had struck fear in Europe.  The empire did continue to hold vastterritories, but only tolerated by competing interests among the Europeanpowers who wanted to maintain a balance of power in Europe.  In particular, Britainand Francesupported and sometimes intervened on the side of the Ottomans in order torestrain expansionist ambitions of the emerging giant, the Russian Empire.

In Europe, the Ottomans hadlost large areas of the Balkans, and all of its possessions in central andcentral eastern Europe.  By 1910, Serbia, Bulgaria,Montenegro, and Greecehad gained their independence.  As aresult, the Ottoman Empire’s last remaining possession in the European mainlandwas Rumelia (Map 4), a long strip of the Balkans extending from Eastern Thrace,to Macedonia, and into Albania in the Adriatic Coast.  And even Rumelia itself was coveted by thenew Balkan states, as it contained large ethnic populations of Serbians,Belgians, and Greeks, each wanting to merge with their mother countries.

The Russian Empire, seeking to bring the Balkans into itssphere of influence, formed a military alliance with fellow Slavic Serbia, Bulgaria, and Montenegro.  In March 1912, a Russian initiative led to aSerbian-Bulgarian alliance called the Balkan League.  In May 1912, Greece joined the alliance when theBulgarian and Greek governments signed a similar agreement.  Later that year, Montenegrojoined as well, signing separate treaties with Bulgariaand Serbia.

The Balkan League was envisioned as an all-Slavic alliance,but Bulgaria saw the need tobring in Greece, inparticular the modern Greek Navy, which could exert control in the Aegean Seaand neutralize Ottoman power in the Mediterranean Sea,once fighting began.  The Balkan Leaguebelieved that it could achieve an easy victory over the Ottoman Empire, for the following reasons. First, the Ottomans currently were locked in a war with the ItalianEmpire in Tripolitania (part of present-day Libya), and were losing; andsecond, because of this war, the Ottoman political leadership was internallydivided and had suffered a number of coups.

Most of the major European powers, and especially Austria-Hungary, objected to the Balkan Leagueand regarded it as an initiative of the Russian Empire to allow the RussianNavy to have access to the Mediterranean Sea through the Adriatic Coast.  Landlocked Serbiaalso had ambitions on Bosnia and Herzegovinain order to gain a maritime outlet through the AdriaticCoast, but was frustrated when Austria-Hungary, which had occupiedOttoman-owned Bosnia and Herzegovina since 1878, formally annexed theregion in 1908.

The Ottomans soon discovered the invasion plan and preparedfor war as well.  By August 1912,increasing tensions in Rumelia indicated an imminent outbreak of hostilities.

March 3, 1918 – World War I: The Treaty of Brest-Litovsk is signed, which ends fighting between Russia and the Central Powers

In Soviet Russia, the Bolsheviks, whose revolution hadsucceeded partly on their promises to a war-weary citizenry and military todisengage from World War I, declared its pacifist intentions to the CentralPowers.  A ceasefire agreement was signedon December 15, 1917 and peace talks began a few days later in Brest-Litovsk(present-day Brest, in Belarus).

However, the Central Powers imposed territorial demands thatthe Russian government deemed excessive. On February 17, 1918, the Central Powers repudiated the ceasefireagreement, and the following day, Germanyand Austria-Hungaryrestarted hostilities against Russia,launching a massive offensive with one million troops in 53 divisions alongthree fronts that swept through western Russiaand captured Ukraine Belarus, Lithuania,Latvia, and Estonia.  German forces also entered Finland, aidingthe non-socialist paramilitary group known as the “White Guards” in defeatingthe socialist militia known as “Red Guards” in the Finnish Civil War.  Eleven days into the offensive, the northernfront of the German advance was some 85 miles from the Russian capital ofPetrograd (on March 12, 1918, the Russian government transferred its capital toMoscow).

On February 23, 1918, or five days into the offensive, peacetalks were restarted at Brest-Litovsk, with the Central Powers demanding fromRussia even greater territorial and military concessions than in the December1917 negotiations.  After heated debatesamong members of the Council of People’s Commissars (the highest Russiangovernmental body) who were undecided whether to continue or end the war, atthe urging of its Chairman, Vladimir Lenin, the Russian government acquiescedto the Treaty of Brest-Litovsk.  On March3, 1918, Russian and Central Powers representatives signed the treaty, whosemajor stipulations included the following: peace was restored between Russiaand the Central Powers comprising Germany, Austria-Hungary, Bulgaria, and theOttoman Empire; Russia relinquished possession of Finland (which was currentlyembroiled in a civil war), Belarus, Ukraine, and the Baltic territories ofEstonia, Latvia, and Lithuania – Germany and Austria-Hungary were to determinethe future of these territories; and Russia also ceded to the Ottoman Empirethe regions of Ardahan, Kars, and Batumi in the Caucasus.

Subsequently, German forces occupied Estonia, Latvia,Lithuania, Belarus, Ukraine,and Poland,establishing semi-autonomous governments in these territories that weresubordinate to the authority of the German monarch, Kaiser Wilhelm II.  The German occupation of the region allowedthe realization of the Germanic vision of “Mitteleuropa”, an expansionist ambitionaimed at unifying all Germanic and non-Germanic peoples of Central Europe into a greatly enlarged and powerful German Empire.  In support of Mitteleuropa, in the Balticregion, the Baltic German nobility proposed to set up the United Baltic Duchy,a semi-autonomous political entity consisting of present-day Latvia and Estonia that would be voluntarilyintegrated into the German Empire.  Theproposal was not implemented, but German military authorities set up localcivil governments under the authority of the Baltic German nobility or ethnicGermans.

Although the Treaty of Brest-Litovsk in March 1918 ended Russia’sparticipation in World War I, the war was still ongoing in other fronts – mostnotably on the Western Front, where for four years, German forces were boggeddown in inconclusive warfare against the British, French and other AlliedArmies.  After transferring substantialnumbers of now freed troops from the Russian front to the Western Front, inMarch 1918, Germany launchedthe Spring Offensive, a major attack into Franceand Belgiumin an effort to bring the war to an end. After four months of fighting, by July 1918, despite achieving someterritorial gains, the German offensive had ground to a halt.

The Allied Powers then counterattacked with newly developedbattle tactics and weapons and gradually pushed back the now spent anddemoralized German Army all across the line into German territory.  The entry of the United States into the war on the Allied side was decisive, asincreasing numbers of arriving American troops with the backing of the U.S.weapons-producing industrial power contrasted sharply with the greatly depletedwar resources of both the Entente and Central Powers.  The imminent collapse of the German Army wasgreatly exacerbated by the outbreak of political and social unrest at the homefront (the German Revolution of 1918-1919), leading to the sudden end of theGerman monarchy with the abdication of Kaiser Wilhelm II on November 9, 1918and the establishment of an interim government (under moderate socialistFriedrich Ebert), which quickly signed an armistice with the Allied Powers onNovember 11, 1918 that ended the combat phase of World War I.

As the armistice agreement required that Germany demobilizethe bulk of its armed forces as well as withdraw the same to the confines ofthe German borders within 30 days, the German government ordered its forces toabandon the occupied territories that had been won in the Eastern Front.  After Germany’scapitulation, Russiarepudiated the Treaty of Brest-Litovsk and made plans to seize back theEuropean territories it previously had lost to the Central Powers.  An even far more reaching objective was forthe Bolshevik government to spread the communist revolution to Europe, first bylinking up with German communists who were at the forefront of the unrest thatcurrently was gripping Germany.  Russian military planners intended theoffensive to merely follow in the heels of the German withdrawal from Eastern Europe (i.e. to not directly engage the Germansin combat) and then seize as much territory before the various local ethnicnationalist groups in these territories could establish a civilian government.