Daniel Orr's Blog, page 4

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, theSoviet Union formed a new Finnish state, the Finnish Democratic Republic, atTerijoki, led by exiled Finnish communist leaders, in the hope that the newregime would encourage the Finnish working class and general population to riseup 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 campaignalong the whole length of the Soviet-Finnish border, with the majorconcentration located at the Karelian Isthmus and north of Lake Ladoga, as wellas secondary attacks further north, at Lieksa, Kuhmo, Suomussalmi, Salla, andPetsamo.  In the far north, the SovietNavy bombarded Petsamo, followed the next day by Red Army troops taking controlof 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 ofthe Soviet High Command were fully confident of achieving success in a shortcampaign, perhaps as little as a few days, and in blitzkrieg fashion withoverwhelming force, essentially rivaling what the Germans had achieved in theirconquest of the western half of Poland. Soviet optimism was borne from its highly successful campaign in theeastern half of Polandjust two months earlier, where the Polish Army put up only token resistance.  Stalin anticipated a similar lacklusterperformance by the Finns.

On November 26, 1939, Mainilla, a Russian frontier villagein the Karelian Isthmus, was attacked byartillery fire.  The Soviets put theblame 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 12-16miles from the border.  When the Finnishgovernment denied any involvement and refused to move back its forces, theSoviet Union repealed the Soviet-Finnish non-aggression pact, and on November29, 1939, cut diplomatic relations with Finland.

By then, Stalin was impatient and ready to go to war, aslarge numbers of Soviet forces had already been brought forward inSeptember-October 1939 and were massed along the 600-mile Soviet-Finnishborder.  With the deployment offirst-line assault forces in November 1939, the Red Army was poised toattack.  The Soviet invasion forcetotaled 540,000 troops, 3,000 tanks, and 3,000 planes, an overwhelming superiorityin numbers over the Finnish Army by the ratio of 3:1 in manpower, 100:1 intanks, and 30:1 in planes.

Guiding Soviet offensive strategy was the Deep Battleconcept developed in the 1930s, which envisioned the coordinated use of massiveland, sea, and air power to advance deep and quickly inside enemy territory toachieve complete tactical and strategic victory.  But in 1937-1938, Stalin launched a majorpurge of the Red Army officer corps (some 50% were affected), which was part ofthe larger Great Purge involving the Soviet communist party itself and otherperceived enemies of the state.  As aresult, by 1939, very few in the Soviet High Command and newly appointedofficers 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 apolitical commissar, who ensured compliance by officers and men of thecommunist party line and had the authority to countermand orders by unitcommanders, if they ran contrary to party policies.  A few Soviet generals resisted the optimismof the Soviet High Command regarding the Finnish campaign, and advised cautionand more preparation for the invasion. General Kirill Meretskov, over-allcommander of the invasion force, also (correctly) warned that the Finnishterrain, 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 theFinnish-Soviet border, from the Gulf of Finland in the south to Murmansk in thenorth, were deployed as follows: Soviet 7th Army, with nine divisions, wastasked with taking the Karelian Isthmus including Viipuri (Finland’s secondmajor city); Soviet 8th Army, with six divisions, would advance through thenorth of Lake Ladoga, and executing a flanking maneuver, attack the rear of theFinnish Mannerheim Line; Soviet 9th Army, with three divisions, would attackwest 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 largenumbers of armored, artillery, and air units.

The Finnish Army, which was greatly outnumbered in manpowerand weapons, was led by Marshall Carl Gustaf Mannerheim, who organized adefensive strategy based on the assumption that the fighting would focus in andaround the Karelian Isthmus.  The Army of the Isthmus of six divisions (IIand III Army Corps; some 150,000 troops), comprising the bulk of the 180,000-strongFinnish Army, was tasked to defend the Karelian Isthmus, while two divisions(IV Army Corps, 20,000 troops) would secure the left flank, north of LakeLadoga.  Mannerheim had (incorrectly)thought that the rest of the border right up to Petsamo, with its difficultterrain and harsh climate, was an unlikely invasion area, and thus was onlylightly manned by Finnish border guards, civil guards, and reserve unitsorganized 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 KarelianIsthmus was the Mannerheim Line, some 80 miles extending from the shore of theGulf of Finland and Summa in the west to Taipale at the edge of Lake Ladoga inthe east, and fortified with 157 machinegun and artillery bunkers throughoutits length, with the heaviest concentration of 41 bunkers located atSumma.  The Line was not evenly fortifiedalong its length, at some points only strengthened with barbed wire, boulders,and concrete slabs, or felled trees, and incorporated natural obstacles aimedto slow down the advance of enemy armor and infantry.  The Line’s flanks were defended by coastalbatteries 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 wayto Petsamo in the north, the Finns possessed only less fortified defenses atTolvajarvi, Kollaa, and Uomma-Impilahti, and individual Finnish commanders wereencouraged to use guerilla tactics emphasizing speed, surprise, and deceptionand to incorporate the elements of terrain, long, dark winter nights, andweather conditions to meet the threat of the much larger Russian forces.

November 29, 1947 – Civil War in Palestine: The UN approves a partition plan for Palestine

The United Nations offered a proposal for the partition for Palestine which the UNGeneral 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 unfairdivision of Palestinein 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 comprised68% of the population, would gain 43% of Palestine.  The lands proposed for the Jews, however, hada mixed population composed of 46% Arabs and 54% Jews.  The areas of Palestine allocated to the Arabs consisted of99% Arabs and 1% Jews.  No populationtransfer was proposed.  Jerusalem and its surrounding areas, withtheir mixed population of 100,000 Jews and an equal number of Arabs, were to beadministered 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 Througha League of Nations mandate, Britainadministered Palestinefrom 1920 to 1948.  For nearly all thattime, the British rule was plagued by violence between the rival Arabs andJewish populations that resided in Palestine.  The Palestinian Arabs resented the Britishfor allowing the Jews to settle in what the Arabs believed was their ancestralland.  The Palestinian Jews also werehostile to the British for limiting and sometimes even preventing other Jewsfrom entering Palestine.  The Jews believed that Palestine had been promised to them as thesite of their future nation.  Arabs andJews clashed against each other; they also attacked the Britishauthorities.  Bombings, massacres,assassinations, and other violent civilian incidents occurred frequently in Palestine.

By the end of World War II in 1945, nationalist aspirationshad risen among the Palestinian Arabs and Palestinian Jews.  Initially, Britainproposed an independent Palestineconsisting of federated states of Arabs and Jews, but later deemed the planunworkable because of the uninterrupted violence.  The British, therefore, referred the issue ofPalestine tothe United Nations (UN).  The Britishalso announced their intention to give up their mandate over Palestine, end all administrative functionsthere, and withdraw their troops by May 15, 1948.  The last British troops actually left on June30, 1948.

The UN offered a proposal for the partition for Palestine (Map 8) whichthe 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 unfairdivision of Palestinein 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 comprised68% of the population, would gain 43% of Palestine.  The lands proposed for the Jews, however, hada mixed population composed of 46% Arabs and 54% Jews.  The areas of Palestine allocated to the Arabs consisted of99% Arabs and 1% Jews.  No populationtransfer was proposed.  Jerusalem and its surrounding areas, withtheir mixed population of 100,000 Jews and an equal number of Arabs, were to beadministered by the UN.

1947-1948 Civil Warin Palestine Shortly after the UN approvedthe 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 againstvehicles plying the roads.  Attacks andpunitive attacks occurred; single gunfire shots led to widespread armedclashes.

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 littleto stop the violence, as they were in the process of withdrawing their forcesand disengaging from further involvement in the region’s internal affairs.  The British did interfere in a few instancesand suffered casualties as well.

A large Jewish paramilitary, as well as a number of smallerJewish militias, already existed and operated clandestinely during the periodof the British mandate.  As the violenceescalated, Jewish leaders integrated these armed groups into a single JewishArmy.

Fighting on the side of the Palestinian Arabs were two rivalarmed groups: a smaller militia composed of Palestinian Arab fighters, and alarger 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 waragainst powerful Britain.

During the course of the war, the Jews experienced majorlogistical problems with the distant Jewish settlements that were separatedfrom 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) andin the south (Negev).

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

The Jews gained a clear advantage in the fighting after theyhad organized a unified army.  Theirmilitary leaders imposed mandatory conscription of men and single women, firstonly for the younger adult age groups, and later, for all men under age 40 and singlewomen up to age 35.  By April 1948, theJewish Army had numbered 21,000 soldiers, up significantly from the fewthousands at the start of the war.

The Jews also increased their weapons stockpiles fromgenerous 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 werepurchased mainly from dealers in Czechoslovakia.  These weapons began to arrive in Palestine early in thefighting, greatly enhancing the Jews’ war effort.  The Jews also procured some weapons fromclandestine small-arms manufacturers in Palestine;however, the output from local manufacturers was insufficient to fill thedemands of the Jews’ growing army as well as the widening conflict.

Starting in April 1948, the Jewish Army launched a number ofoffensives aimed at securing Jewish territories as well as protecting Jewishcivilians in Arab-held areas.  TheseJewish operations were carried out in anticipation of the Arab armies interveningin Palestineonce the British Mandate ended on May 15, 1948.

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

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

In the wake of the Jewish victories, hundreds of thousandsof Arab civilians fled from their homes, leaving scores of empty villages thatwere looted and destroyed by Jewish forces. Earlier in 1948, tens of thousands of middle-class and upper-class Arabshad left Palestinefor safety in neighboring Arab countries. Jewish authorities formally annexed captured Arab lands, merging themwith Jewish territories already under their control.

On May 14, 1948, one day before the end of the BritishMandate 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 Arabcountries, specifically those from Egypt,Jordan, Syria, Lebanon,and Iraq, invaded the newcountry 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 DefenseMinister, as the country’s Prime Minister. But on November 28, 1966, Micombero overthrew King Ntare, abolished themonarchy, and declared the country a republic with himself as its firstpresident.

The fall of the Burundian monarchy marked the end of amoderating middle force against the hostility between the country’s two mainethnic groups: Hutus and Tutsis. President Micombero ruled as a military dictator, despite the countrybeing officially a democracy; he consolidated power by repressing allopposition, particularly the militant Hutu factions.  Many moderate Hutus continued to serve in thecivil service and even top government bureaucracy, but only in positionssubordinate 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 sentimentsemerged and expanded rapidly within the African colonies.  To prepare Burundifor independence, in November 1959, Belgium allowed political partiesto organize.  Then in parliamentaryelections held in September 1961, UPRONA or Unionfor National Progress (French: Union pour le Progres National), which comprisedTutsi and Hutu politicians, won a clear majority in the legislature.  Prince Louis Rwagasore, UPRONA leader and theking’s son, became prime minister.  Justone month later, however, Prince Rwagasore was assassinated, ending his visionof integrating Burundi’sethnic classes.  Prince Rwagasore’s deathalso led to a period of successive Tutsi and Hutu political leaders alternatingas prime minister.

On June 20, 1962, Ruanda-Urundiceased as a United Nations Trust Territory under Belgian administration and thecolony’s union was dissolved.  Then onJuly 1, 1962, Urundi, renamed Burundi,and Ruanda, renamed Rwanda,both gained their independences.  Burundi wasestablished as a constitutional monarchy, with the monarch, then King MwambutsaIV, as ceremonial head of state, and governmental powers vested in a PrimeMinister and a national legislature.  TheParliament was controlled by the bi-ethnic UPRONA, but by 1963, serious riftsin the party had developed along ethnic lines. In January 1965, the Prime Minister, a Hutu, was assassinated, whichtriggered a flurry of ethnic violence with Hutus attacking Tutsis, andretaliations 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 asPrime Minister.  King Mwambutsa, alreadyoverwhelmed by the rising tensions, rejected the selection and named a Tutsi asPrime Minister.

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

The ethnic unrest also was a result of the much greaterturmoil that had erupted in Rwanda, Burundi’s northern neighbor that likewiseshared a similar ethnic composition of Hutu, Tutsi, and Twa populations andwhere 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-partystate (previous article).  Some 150,000Rwandan Tutsis fled into exile in neighboring countries, including Burundi.  In the ensuing years, the events that weretranspiring in Rwanda wouldhave repercussions in Burundi,and vice-versa.

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

The fall of the Burundian monarchy marked the end of amoderating middle force against the hostility between Hutus and Tutsis.  President Micombero ruled as a militarydictator, despite the country being officially a democracy; he consolidatedpower by repressing all opposition, particularly the militant Hutufactions.  Many moderate Hutus continuedto serve in the civil service and even top government bureaucracy, but only inpositions subordinate to Tutsis.

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

Then in April 1972, Hutus in southern Burundi, takingadvantage of the intra-ethnic Tutsi turmoil, rose up in revolt.  The uprising, which also was triggered by thegovernment’s repressive policies and additional purges of Hutu militaryofficers, began in Bururi Province, particularly in Rumonge, and spread quicklyto other areas around Lake Tanganyika, wheremachete- and spear-wielding bands of Hutu fanatical youths roamed thecountryside, attacked Tutsi villages, raided police and military stations, anddestroyed public infrastructures.  Withina 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 Vyandawhere they proclaimed independence as the “Martyazo Republic”.

The government’s response was swift and brutal, with themilitary forces crushing the rebellion and declaring that the rebels werecommunists.  Furthermore, Micombero, whowas from Bururi Province, was determined to end the Hututhreat once and for all.  As aconsequence of the rebellion, many Hutu government officials and militarypersonnel were executed.  Recruitment tothe armed forces was amended to virtually exclude Hutus and only allow Tutsis.

Hutu students of all ages, and Hutu teachers were rounded upfrom the schools and later transported to designated areas where they wereexecuted.  Government soldiers, as wellas their Tutsi paramilitary allies, carried out the executions, including thoseof the Hutu clergy and influential Hutu members of society.  From late April to September 1972, some100,000 to 200,000 Hutus were killed in the event known as the 1972 BurundiGenocide.  An estimated 10,000 Tutsisalso 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 moredistant location from Iran failed as international, mostly western, journalistsflocked to the cleric’s home in France for interviews, generating a greatamount of good publicity for the ayatollah and the revolution in his homeland,and bad publicity for Shah Mohammad Reza Pavlavi and the Iraniangovernment.  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 asemi-divine status, and on the night of November 27, 1978, thousands of peoplewent into frenzied celebration after believing to have seen the cleric’s facein the light of the moon.  Also inNovember 1978, Karim Sanjabi, general secretary of the National Front, anoutlawed secular Iranian political party, met with the exiled cleric in Paris; they subsequentlyforged an alliance that united their forces, a symbolic act as liberals,nationalists, communists, and other secular groups were already joining thereligion-fueled mass actions. However, Ayatollah Khomeini’s belief in theincompatibility between western-styled democracy and Islam would later play outin shaping the government of post-revolutionary Iran.

Iran and nearby countries.

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

Revolution InOctober 1977, protests broke out.  Manypolitical factions had long opposed the Shah, e.g. liberals, democrats,communists, each motivated by diverse reasons but suppressed by SAVAK and othersecurity units.  By the mid-1970s, onlythe Shah’s official Rastakhiz Party functioned, as multi-party politics wasoutlawed, reinforcing the notion that Iran was an autocracy.  By then, to many Iranians, the Shah hadbecome a cold, distant figure.  Rumorsand reports of corruption and extravagance by the monarch, royal family, andgovernment were prevalent.  Moreover,economic growth mostly benefited only the ruling few, widening the gap betweenrich and poor, and the vast majority experienced little, if any, improvement intheir daily lives.

During his reign, the Shah made certain that the country wassecure from foreign and internal threats, particularly from the Soviet Union and Iranian communists.  Suppression of dissent was severe to theextent that although the government refrained from interfering with clericalmatters (because of the clergy’s power and influence among the people), theShah 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 religiousintellectual, Ali Shariati, in June 1977, and Ayatollah Khomeini’s son, thecleric Mostafa Khomeini, in October 1977, were blamed on the government.

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

The year 1978 became the critical period, as it marked thestart of the revolution where the various anti-Shah political, economic, social,and religious factors united into a powerful opposition.  Ayatollah Khomeini, still in exile, urgedIranians to overthrow the Shah.  Then onJanuary 7 of that year, an article in a major national newspaper made scathingpersonal and religious attacks on Ayatollah Khomeini.  The article, which was written under an aliasthat later was identified as belonging to a high-ranking government official,stated that the ayatollah had questionable clerical credentials, was of partIndian (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 bypublishing the article, as the cleric was by now largely forgotten in Iran but whichnow allowed the ayatollah to re-enter the people’s consciousness.  At Qom, the exiled cleric’s hometown insouthern Iran, outraged seminary students broke out in protest at the newspaperarticle, leading to clashes with security forces that resulted in four studentsbeing killed (Ayatollah Khomeini gave a much higher number of fatalities andcalled the dead students “martyrs”).

Then on February 18, 1978, more protests broke out in manytowns and cities to commemorate the Qomdeaths, as per Arbayeen, a Shiite tradition of holding memorial services fortydays after a person’s death.  A riotensued in Tabriz,with protesters attacking and destroying movie theaters, night clubs, and otherinfrastructures deemed an abomination to Islam. Six protesters were killed, although the opposition declared thathundreds were “martyred”.  Then on March29, 1978, forty days later, to commemorate the Tabriz deaths, more demonstrations werecarried out, which once more degenerated into deadly confrontations.  Again forty days later, on May 10, in anothermemorial service observing Abayeen, anti-Shah factions launched moredemonstrations in towns and cities.

These protests, and especially the deadly violence thatensued, shocked the Shah who implemented changes to his government: SAVAK wasrestructured, with a moderate military officer appointed as its head, andgovernment officials with tainted records (as determined by the Shah) weredismissed.  The government also madeefforts to win over moderate sectors of the clergy.  These measures appeared to work, asopposition activity abated during mid-1978. At the urging of Ayatollah Mohammad Kazem Shariatmadari, a leadingcleric, a protest action scheduled on June 17, 1978 was carried out in mosquesand not on the streets.  The government,as well as the CIA which, by this time, also had taken notice of the growingunrest, were convinced that the turbulence had been contained (which turned outto 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 peoplekilled.  Dozens of movie houses had beendestroyed during earlier periods of unrest, but the large number of casualtiesat Cinema Rex prompted tens of thousands of people to take to the streets inanger, believing that the government, specifically SAVAK, had caused thefire.  Anti-Shah activities nowintensified, with protests of hundreds of thousands of people taking place allacross 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 destroyedWest-oriented private properties. Jamshid Amouzegar, the Prime Minister, resigned, and the Shah replacedhim with Jafar Sharif-Emami.

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

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

At any rate, this incident, known as Black Friday, becamethe crucial point of the revolution, invariably turning moderate opposition andneutral 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 realeffect.  By mid-September 1978, the laborsector 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-blownindustry-wide general strike (notably involving the oil sector that was crucialto the government’s survival) had brought the country’s economy into astand-still, threatening a financial collapse. Protest actions also had become much more violent, e.g. looting anddestroying banks, stores, western-oriented buildings, the foreign embassies of Britain and the United States, etc.

During this time, Iranand Iraq were experiencingrapprochement in their otherwise long-standing hostile relationship, withSaddam Hussein, the Iraqi leader, presenting to the Shah two options on how todeal with Ayatollah Khomeini (still exiled in Najaf,Iraq): assassinate, or expelthe cleric from Iraq.  The Shah, after deliberating with hisCabinet, deemed that the cleric’s death would generate even greater tumult anddecided on expulsion.  On October 3,1978, Ayatollah Khomeini was expelled from Iraqand 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 thatwas rented out for him by Iranian émigrés.

The Shah’s decision to expel the ayatollah from Iraq to amore distant location from Iran failed, however, as international, mostlywestern, journalists flocked to the cleric’s home for interviews, generating agreat amount of good publicity for the ayatollah and the revolution in hishomeland, and bad publicity for the Shah and the Iranian government.  Ayatollah Khomeini’s staid, numinous demeanorimpressed upon the western press of an “Eastern mystic”, further enhancing thecleric’s religious stature.  In Iran, theayatollah 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 seenthe cleric’s face in the light of the moon. Also in November 1978, Karim Sanjabi, general secretary of the NationalFront, an outlawed secular Iranian political party, met with the exiled clericin Paris; theysubsequently forged an alliance that united their forces, a symbolic act asliberals, nationalists, communists, and other secular groups were alreadyjoining the religion-fueled mass actions. However, Ayatollah Khomeini’s beliefin the incompatibility between western-styled democracy and Islam would laterplay out in shaping the government of post-revolutionary Iran.

On November 5, 1978, in a television broadcast to hispeople, the Shah acknowledged that he recognized the revolution but said hedisapproved of it, and promised to make amends for his mistakes and work torestore democracy.  The following day, hedismissed Prime Minister Sharif-Emami, replacing him with General Gholam RezaAzhari, a moderate military officer.  TheShah also arrested and jailed 80 former government officials whom he believedhad 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 ofopposition 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 villagein the Karelian Isthmus, was attacked byartillery fire.  The Soviets put theblame 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 12-16miles from the border.  When the Finnishgovernment denied any involvement and refused to move back its forces, theSoviet Union repealed the Soviet-Finnish non-aggression pact, and on November29, 1939, cut diplomatic relations with Finland.

Finland and nearby countries.

By then, Stalin was impatient and ready to go to war, aslarge numbers of Soviet forces had already been brought forward inSeptember-October 1939 and were massed along the 600-mile Soviet-Finnishborder.  With the deployment offirst-line assault forces in November 1939, the Red Army was poised toattack.  The Soviet invasion forcetotaled 540,000 troops, 3,000 tanks, and 3,000 planes, an overwhelmingsuperiority 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 OnAugust 23, 1939, Soviet Foreign Minister Vyacheslav Molotov and German ForeignMinister Joachim von Ribbentrop signed the German-Soviet Nonaggression Pact,which included a secret protocol where the two sides agreed to partitionbetween their countries eastern and central Europeinto 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 beingformerly part of the Russian Empire but had achieved their independences duringthe tumultuous final stages of World War I.

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

In September-October 1939, the Soviet Union applied strongdiplomatic pressure on the Baltic States, and quickly cowered Lithuania, Latvia,and Estoniainto signing mutual assistance agreements that allowed Soviet troops and basesin their countries.  In June 1940, Sovietforces occupied the Baltic States, and after socialist governments came topower in Soviet-controlled elections held in July 1940, Lithuania, Latvia,and Estonia were incorporatedinto the Soviet Union in August 1940.

In October 1939, as in the Baltic States, the Soviet Unionstrong-armed Finlandto gain strategic and territorial concessions. Finlandhad been part of the Russian Empire, annexed by the latter in 1809 as the GrandDuchy of Finland but with broad autonomy. By the mid-19th century, a Finnishnationalist movement had emerged in the capital Helsinki, which grew in opposition to theEmpire’s Russification policies, and gradually adopted nationalistsentiments.  Then in December 1917,taking advantage of the political turbulence in Russiaby the ongoing World War I and the Russian Civil War (which began in November1917), Finlanddeclared independence, but soon became mired in a bitter civil war between thepro-democratic White Guards and pro-Bolshevist Red Guards.  In May 1918, the White Guards prevailed, and Finlandachieved full independence.

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

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

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

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

But the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact quelled Stalin’s concernsand seemingly gave assurance that the Germans would not interfere in Finland.  Thus, the Soviets increased their pressure onthe Finnish government, in October 1939 releasing the following demands: thatthe Finnish-Soviet border along the Karelian Isthmus be moved west to a point20 miles east of Viipuri; that Finnish fortifications in the Karelian Isthmusbe dismantled; that Finland cede to the Soviet Union the islands in the Gulf ofFinland, the Kalastajansaarento (Rybachi) Peninsula in the Barents Sea, and theSalla area; and that Hanko be leased for 30 years to the Soviet Union, where aRussian military base would be built.  Inreturn, the Soviets would cede to Finland Repola and Porajarvi from EasternKarelia, a territory whose size of 3,400 square kilometers was twice as largeas those demanded from Finland.

For Stalin, the Soviet-Finnish negotiations must address thesecurity guarantees for Leningrad,since the city was located just 20 miles from the Finnish border and withinfiring range of Finnish heavy artillery. Stalin wanted to adjust the border here further to the west into Finland, withthe ceded territory serving as a buffer zone between the two nations.  However, the Finnish government saw theseterritorial demands as the first step to an eventual Soviet take-over of Finland.  On October 6 and 10, the Finnish governmentissued a call-up of reserves and effectively conducted a general mobilization,fearing that the Soviet demands would be tantamount to Finland meeting the samefate as the Balkan States.  Thenegotiations, though conducted openly, were characterized by great mutualdistrust: the Finns believing that the Soviet offer was merely a first step togobble up Finland, and theSoviets who believed that Finlandwould side with Germanyin a future war.

The Finns presented a counter-offer, agreeing to cedeterritory in the Karelian Isthmus that would double the distance of the Finnishborder to Leningrad.  But by then, Stalin was in no mood for moretalks and was determined to use armed force, deciding that the Finns werenegotiating in bad faith.

November 25, 1975 – Angolan War of Independence: Cuban forces repel a South-African led attack on Ebo

On November 25, 1975, Cuban artillery batteries stopped a South African-led attack on Ebo during the Angolan War of Independence.  The South Africans had planned to capture Luanda before Angola’s independence day, which had occurred two weeks earlier, on November 11.  After failing in this objective, by December 1975, the South Africans and their Angolan allies had refocused their efforts to capturing as much territory as possible.

Africa showing location of present-day Angola and other African countries that were involved in the Angolan War of Independence. South-West Africa (present-day Namibia) was then under South African rule.

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

Background AfterWorld War II, thousands of Portuguese immigrants settled in Angola.  The world’s prices of coffee beans were high,prompting the Portuguese government to seek new white settlers in its Africancolonies to lead the growth of agriculture. However, many of the new arrivals settled in the towns and cities,instead of braving the harsh rural frontiers. In urban areas, they competed forjobs with black Angolans who likewise were migrating there in large numbers insearch of work.  The Portuguese, beingwhite, were given employment preference over the natives, producing racialtension.

The late 1940s saw the rapid growth of nationalism in Africa.  In Angola, threenationalist movements developed, which were led by “assimilados”, i.e. the fewnatives who had acquired the Portuguese language, culture, education, andreligion.  The Portuguese officiallydesignated “assimilados” as “civilized”, in contrast to the vast majority ofnatives who retained their indigenous lifestyles.

The first of these Angolan nationalist movements was thePeople’s Movement for the Liberation of Angola or MPLA (Portuguese: MovimentoPopular de Libertação de Angola)led by local communists, and formed in 1956 from the merger of the AngolanCommunist Party and another nationalist movement called PLUA (English: Party ofthe United Struggle for Africans in Angola).  Active in Luanda and other major urban areas, the MPLAdrew its support from the local elite and in regions populated by the Ambunduethnic group.  In its formative years, itreceived foreign support from other left-wing African nationalist groups thatwere also seeking the independences of their colonies from European rule.  Eventually, the MPLA fell under the influenceof the Soviet Union and other communistcountries.

The second Angolan nationalist movement was the NationalFront for the Liberation of Angola or FNLA (Portuguese: Frente Nacional deLibertação de Angola).  The FNLA was formed in 1962 from the mergerof two Bakongo regional movements that had as their secondary aim theresurgence of the once powerful but currently moribund Kingdom of Congo.  Primarily, the FNLA wanted to end forcedlabor, which had caused hundreds of thousands of Bakongo natives to leave theirhomes.  The FNLA operated out ofLeopoldville (present-day Kinshasa) in the Congo fromwhere it received military and financial support from the Congolesegovernment.  The FNLA was led by HoldenRoberto, whose authoritarian rule and one-track policies caused the movement toexperience changing fortunes during the coming war, and also bring about theformation of the third of Angola’snationalist movements, UNITA.

UNITA or National Union for the Total Independence of Angola(Portuguese: União Nacional para a Independência Total de Angola) was foundedby Jonas Savimbi, a former high-ranking official of the FNLA, overdisagreements with Roberto.  Unlike theFNLA and MPLA, which were based in northern Angola, UNITA operated in thecolony’s central and southern regions and gained its main support from theOvibundu people and other smaller ethnic groups.  Initially, UNITA embraced Maoist socialismbut later moved toward West-allied democratic Africanism.

War of Independence OnFebruary 3, 1961, farm laborers in Baixa do Cassanje, Malanje, rose up inprotest over poor working conditions. The protest quickly spread to many other regions, engulfing a widearea.  The Portuguese were forced to sendwarplanes that strafed and firebombed many native villages.  Soon, the protest was quelled.

Occurring almost simultaneously with the workers’ protest,armed bands (believed to be affiliated with the MPLA) carried out attacks in Luanda, particularly inthe prisons and police stations, aimed at freeing political prisoners.  The raids were repelled, with dozens ofattackers and some police officers killed. In reprisal, government forces and Portuguese vigilante groups attacked Luanda’s slums, wherethey killed thousands of black civilian residents.

In March 1961, Roberto led thousands of fighters of the UPA(Union of Peoples of Angola, a precursor organization of the FNLA) intonorthern Angola,where he incited the farmers to rise up in revolt.  Violence soon broke out, where native farmerskilled hundreds of Portuguese civilians, burned farms, looted property, anddestroyed government infrastructures.

By May, the Portuguese government in Lisbonhad sent thousands of soldiers to Angola.  In a brutal counter-insurgency campaign,Portuguese troops killed more than 20,000 black civilians and razed thenorthern countryside.  By year’s end, thecolonial government had quelled the uprising and pushed Holden and his UPAfollowers across the border to the Congo.  Some 200,000 black Angolans also fled to the Congo to escapethe fighting and government retribution.

Portugal’scounter-insurgency methods were condemned by the international community.  As a consequence of the uprisings, Portugal began to implement major reforms in Angola, as wellas in its other African colonies.  Forcedlabor was abolished, as was the arbitrary seizure of indigenous lands.  Also for the first time, public education,health care, and other social services were expanded to the general population.

November 24, 1965 – Joseph-Desire Mobutu (later known as Mobutu Sese Seko) seizes power in a coup in the Democratic Republic of the Congo

On November 24, 1965, Joseph-Desire Mobu seized power in a coup in the Democratic Republic of the Congo. He would rule over a totalitarian government for the next 32 years. He renamed the country Zaire, but grossly mismanaged its economy.  Government corruption was widespread, the country’s infrastructures neglected, and poverty and unemployment were rampant.  And while Zaire’s finances stagnated under a huge foreign debt, Mobutu amassed a personal fortune of several billions of dollars. In 1972, he changed his name to Mobutu Sese Seko Nkuku Ngbendu Wa Za Banga (English: “The all-powerful warrior who, because of his endurance and inflexible will to win, goes from conquest to conquest, leaving fire in his wake”), or Mobutu Sese Seko for short, which was in line with the current state policy of “Zarianization” , which aimed to rid the country of the remaining vestiges of colonialism and Western influences, and foster a pro-African Zairian national identity.

The November 1965 coup was his second. On September 14, 1960, as then head of the country’s armed forces, he had seized power during the Congo Crisis. The crisis consisted of a series of civil wars that had begun shortly after the country gained its independence from Belgium on June 30, 1960. Mobutu launched the coup following the impasse between President Patrice Lumumba and President Joseph Kasa-Vubu after Lumumba had sought Soviet support to quell a Belgian-supported uprising in Katanga and South Kasai.

In 1997, he was deposed in the First Congo War.

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

Background In themid-1990s, ethnic tensions rose in Zaire’s eastern regions.  Zairian indigenous tribes long despised theTutsis, another ethnic tribe, whom they regarded as foreigners, i.e. theybelieved that Tutsis were not native to the Congo.  The Congolese Tutsis were called Banyamulengeand had migrated to the Congoduring the pre-colonial and Belgian colonial periods.  Over time, the Banyamulenge established somedegree of political and economic standing in the Congo’s eastern regions.  Nevertheless, Zairian indigenous groupsoccasionally attacked Banyamulenge villages, as well as those of othernon-Congolese Tutsis who had migrated more recently to the Congo.

During the second half of the twentieth century, the Congo’s eastern region was greatly destabilizedwhen large numbers of refugees migrated there to escape the ethnic violence in Rwanda and Burundi.  The greatest influx occurred during theRwandan Civil War, where some 1.5 million Hutu refugees entered the Congo’sKivu Provinces (Map 17).  The Huturefugees established giant settlement camps which soon came under the controlof the deposed Hutu regime in Rwanda,the same government that had carried out the genocide against RwandanTutsis.  Under cover of the camps, Hutuleaders organized a militia composed of former army soldiers and civilianparamilitaries.  This Hutu militiacarried out attacks against Rwandan Tutsis in the camps, as well as against theBanyamulenge, i.e. Congolese Tutsis.  TheHutu leaders wanted to regain power in Rwandaand therefore ordered their militia to conduct cross-border raids from theZairian camps into Rwanda.

To counter the Hutu threat, the Rwandan government forged amilitary alliance with the Banyamulenge, and organized a militia composed ofCongolese Tutsis.  The Rwandangovernment-Banyamulenge alliance solidified in 1995 when the Zairian governmentpassed a law that rescinded the Congolese citizenship of the Banyamulenge, andordered all non-Congolese citizens to leave the country.

War In October1996, the provincial government of South Kivu in Zaire ordered all Bayamulenge toleave the province.  In response, theBanyamulenge rose up in rebellion. Zairian forces stepped in, only to be confronted by the Banyamulengemilitia as well as Rwandan Army units that began an artillery bombardment of South Kivu from across the border.

A low-intensity rebellion against the Congolese governmenthad already existed for three decades in Zaire.  Led by Laurent-Désiré Kabila, the Congorebels opposed Zairian president Mobutu Sese Seko’s despotic, repressiveregime.  President Mobutu had seizedpower through a military coup in 1965 and had in his long reign, grosslymismanaged the country.  Government corruptionwas widespread, the country’s infrastructure was crumbling, and poverty andunemployment were rampant.  And while Zaire’seconomy stagnated under a huge foreign debt, President Mobutu amassed apersonal fortune of several billions of dollars.

Kabila joined his forces with the Banyamulenge militia;together, they united with other anti-Mobutu rebel groups in the Kivu, with thecollective aim of overthrowing the Zairian dictator.  Kabila soon became the leader of this rebelcoalition.  In December 1996, with thesupport of Rwanda and Uganda,Kabila’s rebel forces won control of the border areas of the Kivu.  There, Kabila formed a quasi-government thatwas allied to Rwanda and Uganda.

The Rwandan Army entered the conquered areas in the Kivu anddismantled the Hutu refugee camps in order to stop the Hutu militia fromcarrying out raids into Rwanda.  With their camps destroyed, one batch of Huturefugees, comprising several hundreds of thousands of civilians, was forced tohead back to Rwanda.

Another batch, also composed of several hundreds ofthousands of Hutus, fled westward and deeper into Zaire, where many perished fromdiseases, starvation, and nature’s elements, as well as from attacks by theRwandan Army.

When the fighting ended, some areas of Zaire’s eastern provinces virtuallyhad seceded, as the Zairian government was incapable of mounting a strongmilitary campaign into such a remote region. In fact, because of the decrepit condition of the Zairian Armed Forces,President Mobutu held only nominal control over the country.

The Zairian soldiers were poorly paid and regularly stoleand sold military supplies.  Poordiscipline and demoralization afflicted the ranks, while corruption was rampantamong top military officers.  Zaire’smilitary equipment often was non-operational because of funding shortages.  More critically, President Mobutu had becomethe enemy of Rwanda and Angola,as he provided support for the rebel groups fighting the governments in thosecountries.  Other African countries that alsoopposed Mobutu were Eritrea,Ethiopia, Zambia, and Zimbabwe.

In December 1996, Angolaentered the war on the side of the rebels after signing a secret agreement withRwanda and Uganda.  The Angolan government then sent thousands ofethnic Congolese soldiers called “Katangese Gendarmes” to the KivuProvinces.  These Congolese soldiers werethe descendants of the original Katangese Gendarmes who had fled to Angola in the early 1960s after the failedsecession of the Katanga Province from the Congo.

The presence of the Katangese Gendarmes greatly strengthenedthe rebellion: from Goma and Bukavu (Map 17), the Gendarmes advanced west andsouth to capture Katanga andcentral Zaire.  On March 15, 1977, Kisanganifell to the rebels, opening the road to Kinshasa, Zaire’scapital.  Kalemie and Kamina in Katanga Provincewere captured, followed by Lubumbashiin April.  Later that month, the AngolanArmy invaded Zairefrom the south, quickly taking Tshikapa, Kikwit, and Kenge.

Kabila also joined the fighting.  Backed by units of the Rwandan and UgandanArmed Forces, his rebel coalition force advanced steadily across central Zaire for Kinshasa.  Kabila met only light resistance, as theZairian Army collapsed, with desertions and defections widespread in itsranks.  Crowds of people in the towns andvillages welcomed Kabila and the foreign armies as liberators.

Many attempts were made by foreign mediators (United Nations, United States, and South Africa)to broker a peace settlement, the last occurring on May 16, 1977 when Kabila’sforces had reached the vicinity of Kinshasa.  The Zairian government collapsed, withPresident Mobutu fleeing the country. Kabila entered Kinshasaand formed a new government, and named himself president.  The First Congo War was over; the secondphase of the conflict broke out just 15 months later (next article).

November 23, 1946 – First Indochina War: French forces bombard Haiphong

By September 1946, tensions had risen between French andViet Minh forces, which led to armed threats and provocations.  The Viet Minh (“League for the Independenceof Vietnam”; Vietnamese: Việt Nam Độc LậpĐồng Minh Hội) was a merger of Vietnamese nationalist/independene movementsled by the Indochinese Communist Party which sought the end of French colonialrule. In November 1946, fighting broke out in Haiphong when French port authorities seizeda Chinese junk, but were in turn fired upon by the Viet Minh.  The French first demanded that the Viet Minhyield control of Haiphong,and then bombarded the city using naval and ground artillery, and air strikes.  The French gained control of Haiphong, expelling theViet Minh, with 6,000 civilians killed in the fighting.

Southeast Asia today.

(Taken from First Indochina War – Wars of the 20th Century – Twenty Wars in Asia)

Background OnAugust 14, 1945, Japanannounced its acceptance of the terms of the Potsdam Declaration, marking theend of the Asia-Pacific theatre of World War II (the European theater of WorldWar II had ended earlier, on May 8, 1945). The sudden Japanese capitulation left a power vacuum that was quicklyfilled by the Viet Minh, which in the preceding months, had secretly organizedso-called “People’s Revolutionary Committees” throughout much of thecolony.  These “People’s RevolutionaryCommittees” now seized power and organized local administrations in many townsand cities, more particularly in the northern and central regions, includingthe capital Hanoi.  This seizure of power, historically calledthe August Revolution, led to the abdication of ex-emperor Bao Dao and thecollapse of his Japanese-sponsored government.

The August Revolution succeeded largely because the VietMinh had gained much popular support following a severe famine that hitnorthern Vietnam in the summer of 1944 to 1945 (which caused some 400,000 to 2million deaths).  During the famine, theViet Minh raided several Japanese and private grain warehouses.  On September 2, 1945 (the same day Japansurrendered to the Allies), Ho proclaimed the country’s independence as theDemocratic Republic of Vietnam (DRV), taking the position of President of aprovisional government.

At this point, Ho sought U.S.diplomatic support for Vietnam’sindependence, and incorporated part of the 1776 U.S. Declaration ofIndependence in his own proclamation of Vietnamese independence.  Ho also wrote several letters to U.S.President Harry Truman (which were unanswered), and met with U.S. StateDepartment and OSS officials in Hanoi. However, during the war-time Potsdam Conference (July 17 – August 2,1945), the Allied Powers (including the Soviet Union) decided to allow Franceto restore colonial rule in Indochina, but that in the meantime that France wasyet preparing to return, Vietnam was to be partitioned into two zones north andsouth of the 16th parallel, with Chinese Nationalist forces tasked to occupythe northern zone, and British forces (with some French units) tasked to enterthe southern zone.

By mid-September 1945, Chinese and British forces hadoccupied their respective zones.  Theythen completed their assigned tasks of accepting the surrender of, as well asdisarming and repatriating the Japanese forces within their zones.  In Saigon,British forces disbanded the Vietnamese revolutionary government that had takenover the administration of the city. This Vietnamese government in Saigon, called the “Provisional ExecutiveCommittee”, was a coalition of many organizations, including the religiousgroups Cao Dai and Hoa Hao, the organized crime syndicate Binh Xuyen, thecommunists, and nationalist organizations. In Cochinchina and parts of Annam,unlike in Tonkin, the Viet Minh had onlyestablished partial authority because of the presence of these many rivalideological movements.  But believingthat nationalism was more important than ideology to achieve Vietnam’s independence,the Viet Minh was willing to work with other groups to form a united front tooppose the return of French rule.

As a result of the British military actions in the southernzone, on September 17, 1945, the DRV in Hanoilaunched a general strike in Saigon.  British authorities responded to the strikesby declaring martial law.  The Britishalso released and armed some 1,400 French former prisoners of war; the latterthen launched attacks on the Viet Minh, and seized key governmentinfrastructures in the south.  OnSeptember 24, 1945, elements of the Binh Xuyen crime syndicate attacked andkilled some 150 French nationals, which provoked retaliatory actions by theFrench that led to increased fighting. British and French forces soon dispersed the Viet Minh from Saigon.  The latterresponded by sabotaging ports, power plants, communication systems, and othergovernment facilities.

By the third week of September 1945, much of southern Vietnam wascontrolled by the French, and the British ceded administration of the region tothem.  In late October 1945, anotherBritish-led operation broke the remaining Viet Minh resistance in the south,and the Vietnamese revolutionaries retreated to the countryside where theyengaged in guerilla warfare.  Also in October,some 35,000 French troops arrived in Saigon.  In March 1946, British forces departed from Indochina, ending their involvement in the region.

Meanwhile in the northern zone, some 200,000 Chineseoccupation forces, led by the warlord General Lu Han, allowed Ho Chi Minh andthe Viet Minh to continue exercising power in the north, on the condition thatHo include non-communists in the Viet Minh government.  To downplay his communist ties, in November1945, Ho dissolved the ICP and called for Vietnamese nationalist unity.  In late 1945, a provisional coalitiongovernment was formed in the northern zone, comprising the Viet Minh and othernationalist organizations.  In January1946, elections to the National Assembly were held in northern and central Vietnam, wherethe coalition parties agreed to a pre-set division of electoral seats.

The Chinese occupation forces were disinclined to relinquishcontrol of northern Vietnamto the French.  Chinese officers alsoenriched themselves by looting properties, engaging in the opium trade in Vietnam and Laos,and running black market operations in Hanoi andHaiphong.  However, the Chinese commander also was awareof the explosive nature of the hostile French and Vietnamese relations, whilethe French and Vietnamese suspected the Chinese of harboring territorialambitions in northern Vietnam.

But the Chinese Army, which held the real power, also openednegotiations with the French government, which in February 1946, led to anagreement where the Chinese would withdraw from Vietnam in exchange for Francerenouncing its extraterritorial privileges in China and granting economicconcessions to the ethnic Chinese in Vietnam.

In March 1946, Major Jean Sainteny, a French governmentrepresentative, signed an agreement with Ho, where Francewould recognize Vietnam as a“free statehaving its own government, its own parliament, its own army, and its ownfinances, forming a part of the Indo-china Federation and the FrenchUnion”.  In exchange, the Viet Minh wouldallow some 15,000 French troops to occupy northern Vietnam for a period of fiveyears.  The agreement also stipulatedthat the political future of Vietnam,including whether Cochinchina would form part of Vietnam or remain as a Frenchpossession, was to be determined through a plebiscite.  Soon thereafter, French forces arrived in Hanoi and northern Vietnam.  In June 1946, Chinese forces withdrew from Vietnam.

Throughout the summer of 1946 in Dalat (in Vietnam) and Fontainebleau(in France), Ho Chi Minhheld talks with French government officials regarding Vietnam’sfuture.  The two sides were so far apartthat essentially nothing was accomplished, save for a temporary agreement (amodus vivendi), signed in September 1946, which called for furthernegotiations.  Meanwhile in Saigon,Georges Thierry d’Argenlieu, the French High Commissioner for Indochina,refused to acknowledge that the Ho-Sainteny agreement includedCochinchina.  In June 1946, withoutconsulting the French national government, he established the “AutonomousRepublic of Cochinchina”, which seriously undermined the ongoing talks in France.

In the summer of 1946, the Viet Minh purged non-communistsfrom its party ranks, effectively restoring the DRV into a fully communistentity.  By September 1946, tensions hadrisen between French and Viet Minh forces, which led to armed threats andprovocations.  In November 1946, fightingbroke out in Haiphongwhen French port authorities seized a Chinese junk, but were in turn fired uponby the Viet Minh.  The French firstdemanded that the Viet Minh yield control of Haiphong, and then bombarded the city usingnaval and ground artillery, and air strikes. The French gained control of Haiphong,expelling the Viet Minh, with 6,000 civilians killed in the fighting.

November 22, 1975 – Juan Carlos becomes King of Spain following the death of General Franco

On November 22, 1975, Juan Carlos became King of Spain after the death of General Francisco Franco two days earlier. Franco had ruled Spain as a dictator since emerging victorious in the Spanish Civil War in the late 1930s. As his health declined, Franco appointed Prince Juan Carlos as his successor in 1969, which was approved by the Spanish parliament on July22, 1969. Juan Carlos also temporarily took over as the country’s head of state during periods of Franco’s incapacity in 1974 and 1975.

Franco had hoped that Juan Carlos would continue the government’sultra-conservative and authoritarian policies. Instead, King Juan Carlos dismantledFranco’s totalitarian regime and transitioned Spain into democracy and a parliamentarymonarchy which it is today.

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

Aftermath Followingthe war, General Franco established a right-wing, anti-communist dictatorialgovernment centered on the Falange Party. Socialists, communists, and anarchists, were outlawed, as werefree-party politics.  Political enemieswere killed or jailed; perhaps as many as 200,000 lost their lives in prison orthrough executions.  The politicalautonomies of Basque and Cataloniawere voided.  These regions’ culture,language, and identity were suppressed, and a single Spanish national identitywas enforced.

After World War II ended, Spainbecame politically and economically isolated from most of the internationalcommunity because of General Franco’s affiliation with the defeated fascistregimes of Germany and Italy.  Then with increasing tensions in the Cold Warbetween the United Statesand Soviet Union, the U.S.government became drawn to Spain’sstaunchly anti-communist stance and strategic location at the western end ofthe Mediterranean Sea.

In September 1953, Spainand the United Statesentered into a defense agreement known as the Pact of Madrid, where the U.S. government infused large amounts ofmilitary assistance to Spain’sdefense.  As a result, Spain’s diplomatic isolation ended,and the country was admitted to the United Nations in 1955.

Its economy devastated by the civil war, Spain experienced phenomenaleconomic growth during the period from 1959 to 1974 (known as the “SpanishMiracle”) when the government passed reforms that opened up the financial andinvestment sectors.  Spain’s totalitarian regime endedwith General Franco’s death in 1975; thereafter, the country transitioned to ademocratic parliamentary monarchy which it is today.

November 20, 1910 – Mexican Revolution: Defeated candidate Francisco Madero calls for the overthrow of President Porfirio Diaz

On November 5, 1910, defeated presidential candidate Francisco Madero, who had escaped from prison, wrote and issued the Plan de San Luis, where he called on the Mexican people to rise up in rebellion against President Porfirio Diaz. (In Mexican politics, a Plan is a declaration of principles that accompanies an uprising against the national government.)

The Plan called for the rebellion to start on November 20, 1910, nullified the 1910 election of Porfirio Diaz citing electoral fraud, and stipulated a provisional government with Madero as president. Diaz’s government was also condemned as dictatorial, corrupt, and the cause for the current socio-economic degradation of the country.

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

Background Duringthe early 1900s, Mexicoexperienced increasing levels of prosperity. Mexican president Porifirio Diaz’s thirty-year rule had achieved highlevels of economic growth, allowing the country to make rapid strides to fullindustrialization.  Foreign investmentsfrom the United States and Europe were boosting the local economy.  The country’s natural resources were beingdeveloped, agricultural plantations yielded rich harvests, and urban centersshowed many signs of progress.

Deep within, however, Mexico’s society was rife withdiscontent.  Wealth remained with andgrew only with the small ruling elite. Workers, peasants, and villagers were extremely poor.  Land ownership was grossly disproportionate –5% of the population owned 95% of all lands. Perhaps as many as 90% of Mexicans were peasants who did not own landand were completely dependent on the plantation owners.  Some very wealthy landowners owned vasttracts of land that covered many hundreds of thousands of acres; however, theirfarm workers were paid token wages and lived in miserable conditions.

Landowners dealt ruthlessly with disloyal peasants.  President Diaz also wanted the status quo andthus kept all forms of dissent in check with his army, paramilitaries, andbands of thugs.  Mexico outwardly was a practicingdemocracy; however, President Diaz always manipulated the elections in hisfavor and often used the army and paramilitaries to rein in the politicalopposition.

Mexico’spresidential election of 1910 appeared to be no different from the past, asPresident Diaz again prevailed by resorting to electoral fraud.  Francisco Madero, the main oppositionpresidential contender, escaped from prison and called on the people to rise upin rebellion.  Madero promised to bringabout major social and economic reforms, which appealed to the masses whorushed to join the many rebel groups that had sprung up.

Some key sites during the Mexican Revolution

War In November1910, fighting broke out, first with intermittent, disorganized firefightsbetween government troops and rebels groups that soon escalated into full-scalebattles in many parts of the country. The various rebel movements were led by revolutionaries who weremotivated partly by personal ambitions, but with the collective desire to overthrowthe government and implement major socio-economic reforms.

During the revolution’s early stages, the most prominentrebel leaders included Pascual Orozco and Francisco Villa from the northern province of Chihuahua,and Emiliano Zapata from the southern province of Morelos(Map 35).  The rebels dealt successivedefeats on the government’s forces.  Thenwith the fall of Ciudad Juarezto the rebels in May 1911, President Diaz abdicated and fled into exile.

Madero and the other rebel leaders triumphantly entered Mexico City, the country’scapital, where they were greeted as liberators by large, enthusiasticcrowds.  Then in the general electionsheld in November 1911, Madero became Mexico’s new president.  While in office, however, President Maderoappeared to be in no hurry to carry out the promised reforms, but instituted apolicy of national reconciliation.  Beingan aristocrat who descended from a landowning family, President Madero retainedthe previous regime’s political bureaucracy, which was composed of wealthypoliticians.  At the same time, hecontinued to promise the rebel leaders, most of whom were poor, that majorreforms were coming.  Soon, the rebelleaders became disillusioned, leading many of them to return to their regionsand restart the revolution.

While each revolutionary leader wanted varying levels ofreforms, even the return of the country to the socially progressive 1857national constitution, Zapata, in particular, was angered by President Madero’sprocrastination and apparent non-commitment to bring about the reforms.  Zapata wanted a complete overhaul of thesocial and economic systems, starting with the government’s return ofexpropriated ancestral lands to the indigenous people.  Zapata also demanded that the largeagricultural estates be broken up and distributed to landless peasants andfarmers.