Daniel Orr's Blog, page 42

December 5, 1941 – World War II: Soviet forces launch a massive counter-attack in the Battle of Moscow

On December 5, 1941, Sovietforces comprising the Western, Southwestern, and Kalinin Fronts, with estimatesplacing total troop strength at 500,000 to 1.1 million, launched a powerfulcounter-attack that took the Germans completely by surprise.  The Soviets initially made slow progress, butsoon recaptured Solnechnogorsk on December 12 and Klin on December 15, and withthe German lines crumbling, nearly trapped the German 2nd and 3rdPanzer Armies in separate encirclement maneuvers.

(Taken from German Invasion of the Soviet Union – Wars of the 20th Century – World War II in Europe: Vol. 6)

Battle of Moscow On October 2, 1941, shortly after the Kievcampaign ended, on Hitler’s orders, the Wehrmacht launched its offensive on Moscow.  For this campaign, codenamed OperationTyphoon, the Germans assembled an enormous force of 1.9 million troops, 48,000artillery pieces, 1,400 planes, and 1,000 tanks, the latter involving threePanzer Groups (now renamed Panzer Armies), the 2nd, 3rd,and 4th (the latter taken from Army Group North).  A series of spectacular victories followed:German 2nd Panzer Army, moving north from Kiev, took Oryol onOctober 3 and Bryansk on October 6, trapping 2 Soviet armies, while German 3rdand 4th Panzer Armies to the north conducted a pincers attack aroundVyazma, trapping 4 Soviet armies.  Theencircled Red Army forces resisted fiercely, requiring 28 divisions of German Army Group Centerand two weeks to eliminate the pockets. Some 500,000–600,000 Soviet troops were captured, and the first of threelines of defenses on the approach to Moscowhad been breached.  Hitler and the GermanHigh Command by now were convinced that Moscowwould soon be captured, while in Berlin,rumors abounded that German troops would be home by Christmas.

Some Red Army elements fromthe Bryansk-Vyazma sector avoided encirclement and retreated to the tworemaining defense lines near Mozhaisk. By now, the Soviet military situation was critical, with only 90,000troops and 150 tanks left to defend Moscow.  Stalin embarked on a massive campaign toraise new armies and transfer formations from other sectors, and move largeamounts of weapons and military equipment to Moscow. Martial law was declared in the city, and on Stalin’s orders, thecivilian population was organized into work brigades to construct trenches andanti-tank traps along Moscow’sperimeter.  As well, consumer industriesin the capital were converted to support the war effort, e.g. an automobileplant now produced light weapons, a clock factory made mine detonators, andmachine shops repaired tanks and military vehicles.

On October 15, 1941, onStalin’s orders, the state government, communist party leadership, and Sovietmilitary high command evacuated from Moscow, and established (temporary)headquarters at Kuibyshev (present-day Samara). Stalin and a small core of officials remained in Moscow, which somewhat calmed the civilianpopulation that had panicked at the government evacuation, and initially hadalso hastened to leave the capital.

On October 13, 1941, whilemopping up operations continued at the Bryansk-Vyazma sector, German armoredunits thrust into the Soviet defense lines at Mozhaisk, breaking through afterfour days of fighting, and taking Kalinin, Kaluga, and then Naro-Fominsk(October 21) and Volokolamsk (October 27), with Soviet forces retreating to newlines behind the Nara River.  The way to Moscow now appeared open.

In fact, Operation Typhoonwas by now sputtering, with German forces severely depleted and counting only30% of operational motor vehicles and 30-50% available troop strength in mostunits.  Furthermore, since nearly thestart of Operation Typhoon, the weather had deteriorated, with the seasonal coldrains and wet snow turning the unpaved roads into a virtually impassable clayeymorass (a phenomenon known in Russia as “Rasputitsa”, literally, “time without roads”) that brought Germanmotorized and horse traffic to a standstill. The stoppage in movement also prevented the delivery to the frontlinesof troop reinforcements, supplies, and munitions.  On October 31, 1941, with weather and roadconditions worsening, the German High Command stopped the advance, this pauseeventually lasting over two weeks, until November 15.  Temperatures also had begun to drop, and theGermans were yet without winter clothing and winterization supplies for theirequipment, which also were caught up in the weather-induced logistical delay.

Meanwhile, in Moscow, Stalinand the Soviet High Command took advantage of this crucial delay by hastilyorganizing 11 new armies and transferring 30 divisions from Siberia (togetherwith 1,000 tanks and 1,000 planes) for Moscow, the latter being made availablefollowing Soviet intelligence information indicating that the Japanese did notintend to attack the Soviet Far East.  Bymid-November 1941, the Soviets had fortified three defensive lines around Moscow, set up artilleryand ambush points along the expected German routes of advance, and reinforcedSoviet frontline and reserve armies. Ultimately, Soviet forces in Moscowwould total 2 million troops, 3,200 tanks, 7,600 artillery pieces, and 1,400planes.

On November 15, 1941, cold,dry weather returned, which froze and hardened the ground, allowing the Wehrmachtto resume its offensive.  For the finalpush to Moscow, three panzer armies were tasked with executing a pincersmovement: the 2nd in the south, and the 3rd and 4thin the north, both pincer arms to link up at Noginsk, 40 miles east ofMoscow.  Then with Soviet forces divertedto protect the flanks, German 4th Army would attack from the westdirectly into Moscow.

In the southern pincer,German 2nd Panzer Army had reached the outskirts of Tula as early as October26, but was stopped by strong Soviet resistance as well as supply shortages,bad weather, and destroyed roads and bridges. On November 18, while still suffering from logistical shortages, 2ndPanzer Army attacked toward Tulaand made only slow progress, although it captured Stalinogorsk on November22.  In late November 1941, a powerfulSoviet counter-attack with two armies and Siberian units inflicted a decisivedefeat on German 2nd Panzer Army at Kashira, which effectivelystopped the southern advance.

To the north, German 3rdand 4th Panzer Armies made more headway, taking Klin (November 24)and Solnechnogorsk (November 25), and on November 28, crossed the Moscow-VolgaCanal, to begin encirclement of the capital from the north.  Wehrmacht troops also reached KrasnayaPolyana and possibly also Khimki, 18 miles and 11 miles from Moscow, respectively, marking the farthestextent of the German advance and also where German officers using binocularswere able to make out some of the city’s main buildings.

With both pincersimmobilized, on December 1, 1941, German 4th Army attacked from thewest, but encountered the strong defensive lines fronting Moscow, and was repulsed.  Furthermore, by early December 1941, snowblizzards prevailed and temperatures plummeted to –30°C (–22°F) to –40°C(–40°F), and German Army Group Center, which wasfighting without winter clothing, suffered 130,000 casualties fromfrostbite.  German tanks, trucks, andweapons, still not winterized, suffered operational malfunctions in the winteryconditions.  Furthermore, because of poorweather prevailing throughout much of Operation Typhoon, the Luftwaffe, which had proved decisive in earlierbattles, had so far played virtually no part in the Moscow campaign.

The final German push for Moscow was undertaken withgreatly depleted resources in manpower and logistical support, but the German HighCommand had hoped that one final fierce and determined attack might overcomethe last enemy resistance.  Then with theoffensive failing, the Germans turned to hold onto their positions, andcorrectly assessed that the Soviet frontline forces were just as battered, butunaware that large numbers of Red Army reserve armies were now in place andpoised to go on the offensive.

On December 6, 1941, Sovietforces comprising the Western, Southwestern, and Kalinin Fronts, with estimatesplacing total troop strength at 500,000 to 1.1 million, launched a powerfulcounter-attack that took the Germans completely by surprise.  The Soviets initially made slow progress, butsoon recaptured Solnechnogorsk on December 12 and Klin on December 15, and withthe German lines crumbling, nearly trapped the German 2nd and 3rdPanzer Armies in separate encirclement maneuvers.

On December 8, 1941, Hitlerordered German forces to hold their lines, but on December 14, General FranzHalder, head of the German Army High Command, believing that the frontlinecould not be held, ordered a limited withdrawal behind the Oka River.  On December 20, a furious Hitler met withfrontline commanders and rescinded the withdrawal instruction, and ordered thatpresent lines be defended at all costs. A heated argument then ensued, with the generals pointing out thebattered conditions of the troops and that German casualties from the cold werehigher than those from actual combat.  OnDecember 25, Hitler dismissed forty high-ranking officers, including GeneralHeinz Guderian (2nd Panzer Army), General Erich Hoepner (4thPanzer Army), and General Fedor von Bock (Army Group Center), the latter for “medicalreasons”.  One week earlier, Hitler hadalso fired General Walther von Brauchitsch, Commander-in-Chief of the GermanArmed Forces, and took over for himself the control of all German forces andall military decisions.

By late December 1941 to January 1942, the RedArmy counter-offensive was pushing back the Germans north, south, and west ofMoscow, with the Soviets retaking Naro-Fominsk (December 26), Kaluga (December28), and Maloyaroslavets (January 10). But on January 7, 1942, the Red Army, soon experiencing manpower lossesand extended supply lines, and increasing German resistance, halted itsoffensive, by then having driven back the Wehrmacht some 60-150 miles from Moscow.  The Luftwaffe, which thus far had been anon-factor, took advantage of a break in the weather and took to the skies,attacking Soviet positions and evacuating trapped German units, and provedinstrumental in averting the complete collapse of ArmyGroup Center,which had established new defense lines, including a section, called the RzhevSalient, which potentially could threaten Moscow.

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

Armeniawas dealt a death blow when Soviet Russia, on the pretext of a border dispute,invaded from Azerbaijan.  On December 4, 1920, Yerevan fell to the Russians, and those partsnot yet under Turkish occupation came under their control.  Armenian communists then formed a newgovernment, bringing the country under indirect Soviet politicalauthority.  The Russian invasion of Armenia was part of the Moscowgovernment’s strategy to bring the Caucasus under the Soviet Russia, a planthat was achieved when Georgiaalso was invaded by the Russians the following year.

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

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

Eastern Front Alsoknown as the Turkish-Armenian War, the eastern front carried over fromhostilities in the Caucasus Sector of World War I.  Russian forces had gained control of theCaucasus and northeast Turkey,but withdrew from the region in 1917 following the outbreak of the RussianRevolution.  Later that year, theOttomans and the Soviet government signed an armistice.

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

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

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

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

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

The Armenian state was dealt a death blow when the SovietUnion, on the pretext of a border dispute, invaded from Azerbaijan.  On December 4, 1920, Yerevan fell to the Russians, and those partsnot yet under Turkish occupation came under Soviet control.  Armenian communists then formed a newgovernment, bringing the country under indirect Soviet politicalauthority.  The Soviet invasion of Armenia was part of the Moscowgovernment’s strategy to bring the Caucasus under the Soviet Union, a plan thatwas achieved when Georgiaalso was invaded by the Russians the following year.

In the aftermath, the Ankaragovernment and the Soviet Union made peace andfixed the Turkish-Soviet border under two treaties: the Treaty of Moscow (March16, 1921) and the Treaty of Kars (October 13, 1921); the treaties also endedthe war in the eastern sector.

December 3, 1974 – Western Sahara War: The UN passes a resolution to evaluate the aspirations of residents of the Spanish Sahara

On December 3, 1974, the UNGA passed Resolution 3292declaring the UN’s interest in evaluating the political aspirations of Sahrawisin the Spanish territory.  For thispurpose, the UN formed the UN Decolonization Committee, which in May – June1975, carried out a fact-finding mission in Spanish Sahara as well as in Morocco, Mauritania,and Algeria.  In its final report to the UN on October 15,1978, the Committee found broad support for annexation among the generalpopulation in Morocco and Mauritania.  In Spanish Sahara,however, the Sahrawi people overwhelmingly supported independence under theleadership of the Polisario Front, whileSpain-backed PUNS did not enjoy such support. In Algeria,the UN Committee found strong support for the Sahrawis’ right ofself-determination.

(Taken from Western Sahara War – Wars of the 20th Century – Volume 4)

BackgroundAlthough Spainhad operated in the West African coast since the 16th century, itwas only in the early 1880s that the Spanish established a permanent colonialpresence in the region.  In February1883, the Spanish set up a trading post in the area they called Villa Cisnerosin order to enhance their fishing interests and to deter pirate activitiesagainst the Canary Islands, a Spanish possession since the 1400s.  Then in the Berlin Conference (November 1884– February 1885), the European colonial powers awarded to Spain the yet undefined region in the Africancoast that Spainhad occupied.  The period of the late 1880scoincided with the event known as the “Scramble for Africa”,where European powers carved up the largely undeveloped African continent intocolonial territories.

The Spanish met stiff resistance from the indigenousSahrawi Berber-Arab tribes, but gradually extended control and established moretrading settlements on the coastline from Cape Bojadorin the north to Cap Blanc in the south. The main threat to the Spanish was the other major European colonizer ofthe region, France, which eventuallywould establish French West Africa, a vast territory that encompassed much ofnorthwest Africa.  By the 1930s, however, the two Europeanpowers had agreed on the limits of their territories; Spain also extended itscontrol inland from the coast, subduing resisting tribes and then quellingsubsequent uprisings, and by 1936 had established two regions called Saguiael-Hamra (in the north) and Rio de Oro (in the south).

In December 1946, Spainmerged Saguia el-Hamra and Rio de Oro (collectively called Spanish Sahara) with itsother West African territories, i.e. the southern zone of its protectorate of Morocco in CapeJuby and Tarfaya, and the Ifni region, into one administrative region calledSpanish West Africa with its capital at Villa Cisneros (Figure 13).   Spanish West Africa ended in April 1958following the Ifni War when Spainceded to Morocco the regionsof Cape Jubyand Tarfaya, and relinquished control over much of the Ifni region;subsequently in January 1969, Spainalso ceded to Morocco thecity of Sidi Ifni, Ifni’scapital.  In the meantime, in January1958, Spain declared Spanish Sahara a province and integrated the territoryinto the motherland.

For the Spanish government, Spanish Sahara had beena financial liability, the mostly barren, uninhabitable desert apparentlyyielding no economic benefits, with its rich maritime fishing resourcesbringing some export revenues but nonetheless incapable of reversing the needfor Spain to allocate some amount of money annually to run the colony’sadministration.  But in the late 1940s,commercial quantities of high-grade phosphate deposits were discovered in BouCraa, and theprospect of finding petroleum oil sparked Spain’sinterest to hold onto the territory despite the growing wave ofanti-colonialism that had been sweeping across Africasince the end of World War II.

In December 1960, the United Nations GeneralAssembly (UNGA) passed Resolution 1514 titled “Declaration on the Granting ofIndependence to Colonial Countries and Peoples”, a landmark act thatestablished the UN’s principle of decolonization; an implementing agency calledthe Special Committee on Decolonization, was formed to undertake thedecolonization process.  Based onResolution 1514, the UNGA created a list called the “In-Trust andNon-self-governing Territories”, which contained territories that were stillunder colonial rule.  In 1963, Spanish Sahara was placed on that list.

In April 1956, Moroccogained full independence after Franceand Spainended their protectorates over the Moroccan state.  The Istiqlal Party, an ultra-nationalistpolitical party, advocated “Greater Morocco”, whichcalled for the integration with present-day Morocco of lands and peopleshistorically governed by or subservient to the ancient Moroccan Sultanate.  The concept of a Greater Morocco receivedbroad support among the Moroccan population. The Moroccan government, led by King Mohammed V, officially did notendorse this policy, but also did not discourage – and even tacitly supported –its adherents from carrying out activities in support thereof.

Thus, the government remained neutral when, in theIfni War (previous article) ofOctober 1957, Moroccan militias of the Moroccan Army of Liberation (MAL) invadedSpanish possessions in Western Africa that Moroccan nationalists believed werehistorically part of Morocco.  In the aftermath, Spain ceded a portion of its WestAfrican possessions.  Then in 1963, Morocco fought a border war with Algeria in a failed attempt to capture territoryin western Algeria that washistorically part of Moroccoand was included in the “Greater Morocco” concept.

By the first half of the 1970s, strong internationalpressure was bearing down on Spainto decolonize Spanish Sahara; the Spanishgovernment’s justification of the territory being a Spanish “overseas province”was rejected by the UN.  King Mohammed Vled the call for decolonization, declaring that Spanish Sahara was historicallya part of Moroccoand thus must be returned to its owner.  Mauritania also made a rival claim to theregion, citing ethnic and cultural ties between northern Mauritanian peoplesand Spanish Sahara’s Sahrawi tribes.  Compounding Spain’s problems was the factthat since May 1973, Spanish Sahara itself was caught up in an uprising led bythe Popular Front for the Liberation of Saguia el-
Hamraand Río de Oro (or Polisario Front; Spanish: Frente Popular de Liberación de Saguíael Hamra y Río de Oro), a localSahrawi armed militia that was fighting a guerilla war to end Spanish rule andachieve independence for Spanish Sahara.

In 1974, Spain finally acquiesced,announcing that it was ready to grant self-determination for the Sahrawi peoplecorresponding to the UN resolutions.  InDecember 1974, Spain carriedout a population census in Spanish Sahara inorder to prepare a voters list that would be used in a forthcoming referendumto determine the political wishes of the Sahrawi population.  In a final bid to keep its economic, if notpolitical, hold on the region, in November 1974, the Spanish government formedthe Sahrawi National Union Party (PUNS; Spanish: Partido de Unión Nacional Saharaui), a political party mostlycomposed of the leaders and elders of the various Sahrawi tribes.  Spainhoped to establish a PUNS-led government in either an autonomous or independentSahara that would retain a pro-Spanish foreignpolicy.

On December 3, 1974, the UNGA passed Resolution 3292declaring the UN’s interest in evaluating the political aspirations of Sahrawisin the Spanish territory.  For thispurpose, the UN formed the UN Decolonization Committee, which in May – June1975, carried out a fact-finding mission in Spanish Sahara as well as in Morocco, Mauritania,and Algeria.  In its final report to the UN on October 15,1978, the Committee found broad support for annexation among the generalpopulation in Morocco and Mauritania.  In Spanish Sahara,however, the Sahrawi people overwhelmingly supported independence under theleadership of the Polisario Front, whileSpain-backed PUNS did not enjoy such support. In Algeria,the UN Committee found strong support for the Sahrawis’ right ofself-determination.

Algeriapreviously had shown little interest in the Polisario Front and, in an ArabLeague summit held in October 1974, even backed the territorial ambitions of Morocco and Mauritania.  But by summer of 1975, Algeria was openly defending thePolisario Front’s struggle for independence, a support that later would includemilitary and economic aid and would have a crucial effect in the coming war.

Meanwhile, King Hassan II, the Moroccan monarch (sonof King Mohammed V, who had passed away in 1961) actively sought to pursue itsclaim and asked Spainto postpone holding the referendum; in January 1975, the Spanish governmentgranted the Moroccan request.  In June1975, the Moroccan government pressed the UN to raise the Saharan issue to theInternational Court of Justice (ICJ), the UN’s primary judicial agency.  On October 16, 1975, one day after the UNDecolonization Committee report was released, the ICJ issued its decision,which consisted of the following four important points (the court refers toSpanish Sahara as Western Sahara):

December 2, 1975 – Laotian Civil War: The Pathet Lao announces the formation of a one-party communist state in Laos

OnDecember 2, 1975, the Lao communists proclaimed the Lao People’s DemocraticRepublic (LPDR), a one-party socialist state. The 600-year old monarchy was abolished, and King Sisivang Vatthana wasforced to abdicate.  Souphanouvong was named theLPDR’s president.  However, the realpower was held by Prime Minister Kaysone Phomvihane, who seemingly emerged fromobscurity, but in fact, together with Nouhak Phoumsavan, (the new Deputy PrimeMinister), had led the long revolutionary struggle from behind the scenes.  President Souphanouvong was relegated tobeing the regime’s public face, but was not part of the government’s innerruling circle that made all the major policy decisions.

(Taken from Laotian Civil War – Wars of the 20th Century – Twenty Wars in Asia: Vol. 5)

By 1944, World War II hadturned decisively in favor of the Allied Powers.  In September of that year, France was recaptured by theAllies, and a pro-Allied provisional government came to power.  By early 1945, French commando infiltrations intoIndochina and the subsequent formation of French-Lao guerilla resistance groupsforced the Japanese to dismantle French colonial authority in Indochina.  As a result, the Japanese ruled Indochina directly. The Japanese then exerted pressure on King Sisavang Vong, the pro-French Lao monarch, who in April 1945, ended theFrench protectorate and declared Lao an independent state.  But just four months later, on August 14,1945, Japansurrendered to the Allies, bringing an end to World War II.

In the immediate post-warperiod, Indochina was racked by anarchy andunrest.  In Laos, rival political elementscompeted in a power struggle to fill the void left by the sudden Japanesecapitulation.  In Luang Prabang (the royal capitalof Laos), Prince Phetsarath, the Prime Minister, tried to convince King Sisavang Vong to implementpolicies relevant to an independent Laos. King Sisavang Vong refused, as he wasdetermined to permit the restoration of French rule.  After being stripped of his positions ofPrime Minister and viceroy, on August 27, 1945, Phetsarath took control of Vientiane (Laos’administrative capital).  There, onSeptember 15, 1945, Phetsarath declared a unified Laoscomprising Luang Prabang and the four southern provinces of Khammouan,Savannakhet, Champasak, and Saravane (Figure 14).

On October 7, 1945, a Laopartisan force led by Prince Souphanouvong arrived atSavannakhet, where other nationalists had taken control of the town’sadministration.  Their combined forces,with Souphanouvong as over-allcommander, proceeded north to join Phetsarath in Vientiane.  There, in October 1945, the Lao nationalists,now led by the three princes, the brothers Phetsarath and Souvanna Phouma, and their half-brother Souphanouvong, declared Laos’independence under a revolutionary government called Lao Issara (“Free Laos”).  (Souvanna Phouma and Souphanouvong would later playmajor roles in the coming Laotian Civil War.) On October 10, 1945, the Lao Issara sent a force to Luang Prabang, where it forced King Sisavang Vong into submission.

However, the Lao Issara failed toconsolidate power.  In the immediatepost-World War II period, major political decisions were dictated by thevictorious Allied Powers, which accepted France’sdesire to restore colonial rule in Indochina.  But in the meantime that France was yet assembling a force for thatpurpose, the Allies also allowed the Chinese Nationalist forces to enter Laosto formally accept the Japanese surrender there. 

As a result, Laosbecame partitioned into areas of control by different forces.  The Lao Issara controlled thecapital and the towns of Thakhek and Savannakhet. Chinese forces held thenorthern regions (Luang Prabang, Phongsali and Luang Namtha).  The French-Lao forces controlled the south(Xiangkhoang, Khammouan, and Savannahkhet provinces, together with Pakxe andSaravane, where the pro-French political warlord Prince Boun Oumoperated).  And the Viet Minh (a Vietnamese anti-French revolutionarymovement) occupied Houaphan along the northeast border with Vietnam.

The Lao Issara, apart from its lack of foreign support, faced many othermajor problems: a dearth of money to run a government, a shortage of weapons,and political infighting.  These problemsundermined the Laos Issara’s capacity to survive.  By October 1945, the French had reestablishedits military presence in southern Indochina (Cochinchina and Cambodia).  From Saigon, French troops advanced northtoward Laos.  In January 1946, French-Lao forces seizedfull control of Laos’southern regions and soon entered Savannakhet, meeting only light resistance.  In March 1946, following lengthyFrench-Nationalist Chinese negotiations, Chinawithdrew its forces from Laos(and Vietnam).

On March 21, 1946, at thedecisive Battle of Thakhek, French-Lao forces attacked and defeated the LaoIssara.  A few days later, the Lao Issara governmentabandoned the capital, Vientiane,which was taken over by the French. Arriving at Luang Prabang on March 23, 1946,the Lao Issara made appeasement with Sisavang Vong, restoring him to the throne. King Sisavang Vong only reluctantlyaccepted reconciliation, and on April 23, 1946, he announced a new constitutionand declared Laos’unity.  French forces continued theiradvance north, and entered Luang Prabang in May 1946.  The French ended the remaining Lao Issararesistance, and presently regained control of all Laotian territory.

France reinstated King Sisivang Vong as monarch over Laos,and then reversed its plan to restore direct colonial rule.  Instead, the French government prepared tohand over self-government to the Lao people. In December 1946, elections were held to the Lao National Assembly (thestate legislature), which then convened to prepare a new constitution.  In May 1947, the completed constitution,ratified by the king, declared Laosan autonomous state within the French Union. In July 1949, in the Franco-Lao General Convention, France granted the Lao government greaterprerogatives in Laos’foreign affairs.  In February 1950, with France again confirming Laos’ self-determination status, the United States and Britainrecognized Laosas a sovereign state.  In December 1955, Laosjoined the United Nations.

However, despite Laos’ apparent independence, France retained a virtual stranglehold over thecountry, controlling Laos’finance, defense, and major foreign policy functions.  French forces also were stationed in thecountry, which by the late 1940s, had become extremely vital to French regionalinterests, because of the ongoing conflict in Vietnam (First Indochina War, separate article).

Meanwhile, the Lao Issara, following its defeat, fled to Thailand, where it set up agovernment-in-exile and a guerilla force. Lao Issara fighters then began launching cross-border attacks into Laos.  But in November 1947, a military coup in Thailand brought to power a regime that restoredrelations with France,recognized Laos, anddismantled Lao Issara bases in Thailand.  The Lao Issara then experienced infightingwithin its leadership, particularly between Phetsarath and Souphanouvong, on whether to seek assistance from the communist VietMinh to continue the revolutionarystruggle.  Souphanouvong, a Marxist ideologue, subsequently was expelled from theLao Issara.  He then moved to Vietnam,where he previously had lived many years, and came into contact with Ho ChiMinh, the Vietnamese communist revolutionary leader.

In October 1949, theremaining Lao revolutionaries disbanded the Lao Issara and dissolved theirgovernment-in-exile.  Souvanna Phouma accepted a Laogovernment amnesty and returned to Laos, where he would play a majorpolitical role in the next 25 years. After the 1951 National Assembly elections, he became Prime Minister,holding this position until 1954.  In subsequentyears, he would return as Prime Minister in 1956-1958, 1960, and 1962-1975.

Phetsarath remained in Thailand,and ceased to play an important role in Laotian politics.  In Vietnam, Souphanouvong met with other Laoanti-French radicals.  These includedcommunists, but also non-communists, such as former Lao officials and royals,and ethnic minorities, who saw the Lao royal government as no more than aFrench puppet.  In August 1950, theseanti-colonialists formed the Neo Lao Issara (Free Laos Front),purportedly a united front of Lao opposition groups comprising differentpolitical persuasions.  A revolutionarygovernment also was formed, called the “Resistance Government of the Lao Homeland”,led by Souphanouvong as itspresident.  The Western press soon beganusing its shortened name, “Pathet Lao” (Lao Homeland), torefer to this organization.

December 1, 1944 – Greek Civil War: The Greek government orders nearly all resistance groups to disarm and demobilize

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

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

On December 1, 1944, the Athens government issued a directiverequiring all resistance groups and militias (with a few exceptions) to disarmand demobilize.  EAM-ELAS refused, andthe six EAM representatives resigned their positions in the unitygovernment.  EAM called for a massassembly, which was carried out by some 200,000 EAM supporters in Athens on December 3.  As the crowd traversed parts of the downtownarea, gunfire erupted.  In the ensuingtumult, some 28 persons were killed and 148 were injured.

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

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

Background TheGreek Civil War has its origin in World War II, in April 1941 when the AxisPowers of Germany, Italy,and Bulgaria invaded andoverrun Greeceand defeated and expelled the Greek and British forces.  Greece’sKing George II and the Greek government fled to exile in Britain-controlled Egypt, where they set up a government-in-exilein Cairo.  In Greece,the Axis partitioned the country into zones of occupation and set up acollaborationist government in Athens.

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

In February 1942, EAM formed an armed wing, the GreekPeople’s Liberation Army, or ELAS (Greek transliteration: Ellinikós LaïkósApeleftherotikós Stratós), which carried out guerilla and sabotage operationsagainst the Axis forces and collaborationist government.  Success in the battlefield allowed EAM-ELASto gain control of the Greek countryside and mountain areas, drawing activesupport from the rural population (communist and non-communists), and allowingthe resistance to grow to 50,000 fighters and 500,000 non-combatauxiliaries.  Perhaps as much asthree-quarters of Greek territory came under EAM-ELAS control, although themajor urban areas, including Athens,continued to be held by the Axis.

Other resistance movements (all advocating non-communistideologies) also operated during the occupation, with the two major of thesebeing the National Republican Greek League, or EDES (Greek transliteration:Ethnikos Dimokratikos Ellinikos Syndesmos, abbreviated) and the National andSocial Liberation, or EKKA (Greek transliteration: Ethniki kai KoinonikiApeleftherosis).  These groups had muchsmaller militias and were less military capable of confronting the enemy thanwas EAM-ELAS.  Britain provided technical andmaterial support to all Greek resistance groups, including EAM-ELAS, whosecommunist ideology were at odds with the British.

The Greek resistance groups were hostile to each other, andskirmishes broke out among them as did they against the Axisforces/collaborationist militias.  TheBritish and EAM-ELAS also were wary of each other with regards to post-war Greeceand the country’s political future.  Thismutual distrust initially was set aside because of the need to fight a commonenemy, but gradually increased toward war’s end when the Axis defeat becamecertain.

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

Because of its multi-party, multi-ideology origins, EAM-ELASofficially promoted a democratic policy. However, since it was dominated by the KKE (comprising the largestconstituent organization), EAM-ELAS was formed and functioned along communistlines.  EAM-ELAS also was firmly opposedto the return of Greece’sgovernment-in-exile, because of fears of a return to the pre-war right-wing(i.e. repressive) regime, as well as to the return of the king, who hadsupported that regime.

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

In April 1944, a mutiny broke out in Egypt among soldiers of the exiled Greek ArmedForces, who declared that the government-in-exile was irrelevant and needed tobe replaced by a new, progressive government that genuinely represented thechanges taking place in Greece.  British authorities quelled the mutiny, andjailed the soldiers.

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

November 30, 1939 – World War II: Soviet forces cross into Finland, starting the Winter War

On November 30, 1939, the Winter War between the SovietUnion and Finland began withSoviet planes bombing Helsinki,Viipuri, and other locations, killing civilians and destroyinginfrastructures.  The next day, at theGulf of Finland, the Soviet cruiser Kirov and her escort of two destroyersattempted to bombard Hanko but instead were fired upon by Finnish coastalbatteries at Russaro Island, taking hits and forced to return to theirbase at Kronstadt, near Leningrad.  Shortly after the Red Army launched itsinvasion, Finland appealedto the League of Nations, which on December 14, 1939, expelled the Soviet Unionand called on member states to help Finland.

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: Vol. 6)

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 – The UN approves the partition plan for Palestine

The UN offered a proposal for the partition for Palestine (Map 8)which the UN General Assembly subsequently approved on November 29, 1947. The Palestinian Jews accepted the plan, whereas the Palestinian Arabs rejectedit.  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 butwould acquire 56% of the land.  The Arabs, who comprised 68% of thepopulation, would gain 43% of Palestine. The lands proposed for the Jews, however, had a mixed population composed of46% Arabs and 54% Jews.  The areas of Palestine allocated to the Arabs consisted of99% Arabs and 1% Jews.  No population transfer was proposed.  Jerusalem and itssurrounding areas, with their mixed population of 100,000 Jews and an equalnumber of Arabs, were to be administered by the UN.

(Taken from 1947-1948 Civil War in Palestine – Wars of the 20th Century – Volume 2)

Background Through a League of Nations mandate, Britain administered Palestine from 1920 to 1948.  For nearlyall that time, the British rule was plagued by violence between the rival Arabsand Jewish populations that resided in Palestine.  The Palestinian Arabs resented theBritish for allowing the Jews to settle in what the Arabs believed was theirancestral land.  The Palestinian Jews also were hostile to the British forlimiting and sometimes even preventing other Jews from entering Palestine.  The Jewsbelieved that Palestinehad been promised to them as the site of their future nation.  Arabs andJews clashed against each other; they also attacked the Britishauthorities.  Bombings, massacres, assassinations, and other violentcivilian incidents occurred frequently in Palestine.

By the end of World War II in1945, nationalist aspirations had risen among the Palestinian Arabs andPalestinian 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 of Palestineto the United Nations (UN).  The British also announced their intention togive up their mandate over Palestine,end all administrative functions there, and withdraw their troops by May 15,1948.  The last British troops actually left on June 30, 1948.

The UN offered a proposal for the partition for Palestine (Map 8)which the UN General Assembly subsequently approved on November 29, 1947. The Palestinian Jews accepted the plan, whereas the Palestinian Arabs rejectedit.  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 butwould acquire 56% of the land.  The Arabs, who comprised 68% of thepopulation, would gain 43% of Palestine. The lands proposed for the Jews, however, had a mixed population composed of46% Arabs and 54% Jews.  The areas of Palestine allocated to the Arabs consisted of99% Arabs and 1% Jews.  No population transfer was proposed.  Jerusalem and itssurrounding areas, with their mixed population of 100,000 Jews and an equalnumber of Arabs, were to be administered by the UN.

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

(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.  Burundiwas established as a constitutional monarchy, with the monarch, then KingMwambutsa IV, as ceremonial head of state, and governmental powers vested in aPrime Minister and a national legislature. The Parliament was controlled by the bi-ethnic UPRONA, but by 1963,serious rifts in the party had developed along ethnic lines.  In January 1965, the Prime Minister, a Hutu,was assassinated, which triggered a flurry of ethnic violence with Hutusattacking Tutsis, and retaliations by the Tutsi-dominated military forcestargeting Hutus.  In the elections heldin May of that year, Hutu politicians gained control of Parliament and thenelected another Hutu as Prime Minister. King Mwambutsa, already overwhelmed by the rising tensions, rejected theselection and named a Tutsi as Prime 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, taking advantage of theintra-ethnic Tutsi turmoil, rose up in revolt. The uprising, which also was triggered by the government’s repressivepolicies and additional purges of Hutu military officers, began in Bururi Province,particularly in Rumonge, and spread quickly to other areas around Lake Tanganyika, where machete- and spear-wielding bandsof Hutu fanatical youths roamed the countryside, attacked Tutsi villages,raided police and military stations, and destroyed public infrastructures.  Within a few days, some 1,000 to 3,000 Tutsishad been killed before the marauders, now armed with firearms seized fromgovernment armories, withdrew to Vyanda where they proclaimed independence asthe “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 a semi-divinestatus, and on the night of November 27, 1978, thousands of people went intofrenzied celebration after believing to have seen the cleric’s face in thelight of the moon.  Also in November1978, Karim Sanjabi, general secretary of the National Front, an outlawedsecular 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 the religion-fueledmass actions. However, Ayatollah Khomeini’s belief in the incompatibilitybetween western-styled democracy and Islam would later play out in shaping thegovernment of post-revolutionary Iran.

(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 by publishingthe article, as the cleric was by now largely forgotten in Iran but which now allowed theayatollah 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 replaced himwith 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 involving thousandsof 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 that wasrented 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,the ayatollah took on a semi-divine status, and on the night of November 27,1978, thousands of people went into frenzied celebration after believing tohave seen the cleric’s face in the light of the moon.  Also in November 1978, Karim Sanjabi, generalsecretary of the National Front, an outlawed secular Iranian political party,met with the exiled cleric in Paris;they subsequently forged an alliance that united their forces, a symbolic actas liberals, 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, 1950 – Korean War: Chinese and UN forces clash at the Battle of Chosin Reservoir

Meanwhile in the UN easternsector of the “Home-by-Christmas” Offensive, the U.S. 1st MarineDivision advanced from Yudami-ni on the western side of the Chosin Reservoir, while the U.S. 7th Infantry Division and other unitstook positions in Sinhung-ni and on the eastern side of the reservoir.  On November 27, 1950, some 67,000 Chinesetroops of the PVA IX Army Group sprung surprise attacks along three frontsaimed at trapping and destroying the 30,000-man U.S. forces.  What followed was the Battle of ChosinReservoir, a 17-day series of clashes at high altitude and sub-freezingtemperatures of minus 40°C (minus 40° F). U.S.forces fought retreating battles in a desperate attempt to avoidencirclement.  The U.S. 1stMarine Division, outnumbered 7:1, made a successful break-out, and with strongU.S. air support, inflicted heavy casualties on the advancing Chineseforces.  Task Force Faith (named afterits commander, Colonel Don Faith; comprising three battalions of the U.S.7th Infantry Division) also escaped encirclement by two Chinese divisions(comprising 20,000 troops).  But TaskForce Faith was decimated, losing 2,000 of its 3,000 soldiers, and all of itsvehicles and heavy equipment, although it also caused heavy casualties on theChinese forces.

(Taken from Korean War – Wars of the 20th Century – Twenty Wars in Asia: Vol. 5)

Background DuringWorld War II, the Allied Powers met many times to decide the disposition ofJapanese territorial holdings after the Allies had achieved victory.  With regards to Korea,at the Cairo Conference held in November 1943, the United States, Britain,and Nationalist China agreed that “in due course, Korea shall become free andindependent”.  Then at the YaltaConference of February 1945,the Soviet Union promised to enter the war in the Asia-Pacificin two or three months after the European theater of World War II ended.

East Asia

Then with the Soviet Armyinvading northern Korea onAugust 9, 1945, the United Statesbecame concerned that the Soviet Union might well occupy the whole Korean Peninsula.  The U.S.government, acting on a hastily prepared U.S.military plan to divide Koreaat the 38th parallel, presented the proposal to the Soviet government, whichthe latter accepted.

The Soviet Army continuedmoving south and stopped at the 38th parallel on August 16,1945.  U.S.forces soon arrived in southern Koreaand advanced north, reaching the 38th parallel on September 8,1945.  Then in official ceremonies, the U.S.and Soviet commands formally accepted the Japanese surrender in theirrespective zones of occupation. Thereafter, the American and Soviet commandsestablished military rule in their occupation zones.

As both the U.S. and Sovietgovernments wanted to reunify Korea, in a conference in Moscow in December1945, the Allied Powers agreed to form a four-power (United States, Soviet Union, Britain, and Nationalist China) five-yeartrusteeship over Korea.  During the five-year period, a U.S.-SovietJoint Commission would work out the process of forming a Koreangovernment.  But after a series ofmeetings in 1946-1947, the Joint Commission failed to achieve anything.  In September 1947, the U.S. government referred the Koreanquestion to the United Nations (UN).  Thereasons for the U.S.-Soviet Joint Commission’s failure to agree to a mutuallyacceptable Korean government are three-fold and to some extent allinterrelated: intense opposition by Koreans to the proposed U.S.-Soviettrusteeship; the struggle for power among the various ideology-based politicalfactions; and most important, the emerging Cold War confrontation between the United States and the Soviet Union.

Historically, Korea for many centuries had been a politicallyand ethnically integrated state, although its independence often wasinterrupted by the invasions by its powerful neighbors, China and Japan.  Because of this protracted independence, inthe immediate post-World War II period, Koreans aspired for self-rule, andviewed the Allied trusteeship plan as an insult to their capacity to run theirown affairs.  However, at the same time, Korea’spolitical climate was anarchic, as different ideological persuasions, fromright-wing, left-wing, communist, and near-center political groups, clashedwith each other for political power.  Asa result of Japan’sannexation of Koreain 1910, many Korean nationalist resistance groups had emerged.  Among these nationalist groups were theunrecognized “Provisional Government of the Republic of Korea”led by pro-West, U.S.-based Syngman Rhee; and acommunist-allied anti-Japanese partisan militia led by Kim Il-sung.  Both men wouldplay major roles in the Korean War.  Atthe same time, tens of thousands of Koreans took part in the SecondSino-Japanese War (1937-1945) and the Chinese Civil War, joiningand fighting either for Chiang Kai-shek’s Nationalist forces,or for Mao Zedong’s Chinese Red Army.

The Korean anti-Japaneseresistance movement, which operated mainly out of Manchuria,was divided along ideological lines. Some groups advocated Western-style capitalist democracy, while othersespoused Soviet communism.  However, allwere strongly anti-Japanese, and launched attacks on Japanese forces in Manchuria, China,and Korea.

On their arrival in thesouthern Korean zone in September 1948, U.S. forces imposed direct rulethrough the United States Army Military Government In Korea (USAMGIK).  Earlier, members of the Korean CommunistParty in Seoul(the southern capital) had sought to fill the power vacuum left by the defeatedJapanese forces, and set up “local people’s committees” throughout the Koreanpeninsula.  Then two days before U.S.forces arrived, Korean communists of the “Central People’s Committee”proclaimed the “Korean People’s Republic”.

In October 1945, under theauspices of a U.S. militaryagent, Syngman Rhee, the former president of the “Provisional Government ofthe Republic of Korea”arrived in Seoul.  The USAMGIK refused to recognize thecommunist Korean People’s Republic, as well as the pro-West “ProvisionalGovernment”.  Instead, U.S. authorities wanted to form apolitical coalition of moderate rightist and leftist elements.  Thus, in December 1946, under U.S.sponsorship, moderate and right-wing politicians formed the South KoreanInterim Legislative Assembly.  However,this quasi-legislative body was opposed by the communists and other left-wingand right-wing groups.

In the wake of the U.S.authorities’ breaking up the communists’ “people’s committees” violence brokeout in the southern zone during the last months of 1946.  Called the Autumn Uprising, the unrest wascarried out by left-aligned workers, farmers, and students, leading to manydeaths through killings, violent confrontations, strikes, etc.  Although in many cases, the violence resultedfrom non-political motives (such as targeting Japanese collaborators orsettling old scores), American authorities believed that the unrest was part ofa communist plot.  They thereforedeclared martial law in the southern zone. Following the U.S.military’s crackdown on leftist activities, the communist militants went intohiding and launched an armed insurgency in the southern zone, which would playa role in the coming war.