Daniel Orr's Blog, page 45

November 5, 1978 – Iranian Revolution: The Shah of Iran acknowledges the ongoing revolution but disapproves of it

On November 5, 1978, Shah Mohammad Reza Pahlavi acknowledgedin a nationwide broadcast the ongoing popular revolution taking place but saysthat he disapproved of it. He also pledged to make amends for his mistakes andwork to restore democracy. The following day, he dismissed Prime MinisterSharif-Emami, replacing him with General Gholam Reza Azhari, a moderatemilitary officer.  The Shah also arrestedand jailed 80 former government officials whom he believed had failed thecountry and ultimately were responsible for the current unrest; the loss of hisstaunchest supporters, however, further isolated the Shah.  Simultaneously, he also released hundreds ofopposition political prisoners.

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

Background Underthe Shah, Iran developedclose political, military, and economic ties with the United States, was firmly West-aligned andanti-communist, and received military and economic aid, as well as purchasedvast amounts of weapons and military hardware from the United States.  The Shah built a powerful military, at itspeak the fifth largest in the world, not only as a deterrent against the SovietUnion but just as important, as a counter against the Arab countries(particularly Iraq), Iran’s traditional rival for supremacy in the Persian Gulfregion.  Local opposition and dissentwere stifled by SAVAK (Organization of Intelligence and National Security;Persian: Sāzemān-e Ettelā’āt va Amniyat-e Keshvar), Iran’s CIA-trained intelligence andsecurity agency that was ruthlessly effective and transformed the country intoa police state.

Iran, theworld’s fourth largest oil producer, achieved phenomenal economic growth in the1960s and 1970s and more particularly after the 1973 oil crisis when world oilprices jumped four-fold, generating huge profits for Iran that allowed its government toembark on massive infrastructure construction projects as well as socialprograms such as health care and education. And in a country where society was both strongly traditionalist andreligious (99% of the population is Muslim), the Shah led a government that wasboth secular and western-oriented, and implemented programs and policies thatsought to develop the country based on western technology and some aspects ofwestern culture.  Iran’s push to westernize andsecularize would be major factors in the coming revolution.  The initial signs of what ultimately became afull-blown uprising took place sometime in 1977.

At the core of the Shiite form of Islam in Iran is the ulama (Islamicscholars) led by ayatollahs (the top clerics) in a religious hierarchy thatincludes other orders of preachers, prayer leaders, and cleric authorities thatadministered the 9,000 mosques around the country.  Traditionally, the ulama was apolitical anddid not interfere with state policies, but occasionally offered counsel or itsopinions on government matters and policies.

In January 1963, the Shah launched sweeping major social andeconomic reforms aimed at shedding off the country’s feudal, traditionalistculture and to modernize society.  Theseambitious reforms, known as the “White Revolution”, included programs thatadvanced health care and education, and the labor and business sectors.  The centerpiece of these reforms, however,was agrarian reform, where the government broke up the vast agriculturelandholdings owned by the landed few and distributed the divided parcels tolandless peasants who formed the great majority of the rural population.  While land reform achieved some measure ofsuccess with about 50% of peasants acquiring land, the program failed to winover the rural population as the Shah intended; instead, the deeply religiouspeasants remained loyal to the clergy. Agrarian reform also antagonized the clergy, as most clerics belonged towealthy landowning families who now were deprived of their lands.

Much of the clergy did not openly oppose these reforms,except for some clerics in Qomled by Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, who in January 22, 1963 denounced the Shahfor implementing the White Revolution; this would mark the start of a longantagonism that would culminate in the clash between secularism and religionfifteen years later.  The clerics alsoopposed other aspects of the White Revolution, including extending votingrights to women and allowing non-Muslims to hold government office, as well asbecause the reforms would reduce the cleric’s influence in education and familylaw.  The Shah responded to AyatollahKhomeini’s attacks by rebuking the religious establishment as beingold-fashioned and inward-looking, which drew outrage from even moderateclerics.  Then on June 3, 1963, AyatollahKhomeini launched personal attacks on the Shah, calling the latter “a wretched,miserable man” and likening the monarch to the “tyrant” Yazid I (an Islamiccaliph of the 7th century).  The governmentresponded two days later, on June 5, 1963, by arresting and jailing the cleric.

Ayatollah Khomeini’s arrest sparked strong protests thatdegenerated into riots in Tehran, Qom, Shiraz,and other cities.  By the third day, theviolence had been quelled, but not before a disputed number of protesters werekilled, i.e. government cites 32 fatalities, the opposition gives 15,000, andother sources indicate hundreds.

Ayatollah Khomeini was released a few months later.  Then on October 26, 1964, he again denouncedthe government, this time for the Iranian parliament’s recent approval of theso-called “Capitulation” Bill, which stipulated that U.S.military and civilian personnel in Iran, if charged with committingcriminal offenses, could not be prosecuted in Iranian courts.  To Ayatollah Khomeini, the law was evidencethat the Shah and the Iranian government were subservient to the United States.  The ayatollah again was arrested andimprisoned; government and military leaders deliberated on his fate, whichincluded execution (but rejected out of concerns that it might incite moreunrest), and finally decided to exile the cleric.  In November 1964, Ayatollah Khomeini wasforced to leave the country; he eventually settled in Najaf, Iraq,where he lived for the next 14 years.

While in exile, the cleric refined his absolutist version ofthe Islamic concept of the “Wilayat al Faqih” (Guardianship of theJurisprudent), which stipulates that an Islamic country’s highest spiritual andpolitical authority must rest with the best-qualified member (jurisprudent) ofthe Shiite clergy, who imposes Sharia (Islamic) Law and ensures that statepolicies and decrees conform with this law. The cleric formerly had accepted the Shah and the monarchy in theoriginal concept of Wilayat al Faqih; later, however, he viewed all forms ofroyalty incompatible with Islamic rule. In fact, the ayatollah would later reject all other (European) forms ofgovernment, specifically citing democracy and communism, and famously declaredthat an Islamic government is “neither east nor west”.

Ayatollah Khomeini’s political vision of clerical rule wasdisseminated in religious circles and mosques throughout Iran from audio recordings thatwere smuggled into the country by his followers and which was tolerated orlargely ignored by Iranian government authorities.  In the later years of his exile, however, thecleric had become somewhat forgotten in Iran, particularly among theyounger age groups.

Meanwhile in Iran,the Shah continued to carry out secular programs that alienated most of the population.  In October 1971, to commemorate 25 centuriessince the founding of the Persian Empire, the Shah organized a lavish programof activities in Persepolis,capital of the First Persian Empire. Then in March 1976, the Shah announced that Iran henceforth would adopt the“imperial” calendar (based on the reign of Persian king Cyrus the Great) toreplace the Islamic calendar.  Theseacts, considered anti-Islamic by the clergy and many Iranians, would form partof the anti-royalist backlash in the coming revolution.

November 4, 1962 – Sino-Indian War: China offers to India a mutual relinquishing of territory

On November 4, 1962, the Chinese government through PremierZhou Enlai offered to relinquish its claim to the North-East Frontier Agency(NEFA) in exchange for Indiadoing the same for Aksai Chin. The offer was made during a lull in the fightingduring the Sino-Indian War. On November 14, Indian Prime Minister JawaharlalNehru rejected the offer, leading to a resumption of fighting after athree-week lull. In mid-November, the Indian government declared a state ofemergency throughout the country.

(Taken from Sino-Indian War – Wars of the 20th Century – Twenty Wars in Asia: Vol 5)

Hostilities began on October 20, 1962 when Chinese forceslaunched offensives in two main sectors: in the eastern sector (North-EastFrontier Agency; NEFA) north of the McMahon Line, and in the western sector inAksai Chin.  Some fighting also occurredin the Nathu La Pass, Sikkim near the China-India border.  The Chinese government called the operation a“self-defensive counterattack”, implying that India had started the war bycrossing north of the McMahon Line.

Background of theSino-Indian War In the 19th century, the British and Russian Empires werelocked in a political and territorial rivalry known as the Great Game, wherethe two powers sought to control and dominate Central Asia.  The Russians advanced southward into territoriesthat ultimately would form the present-day countries of Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan,Tajikistan, Turkmenistan, and Uzbekistan, while the Britishadvanced northward across the Indian subcontinent.  By the mid-1800s, Britainhad established full control over territories of British India and the Princely States(present-day India, Pakistan, and Bangladesh).  Just as it did with the Russians regardingBritish territories in northwest India,the British government sought to establish its territorial limits in the eastwith the other great regional power, China.  British authorities particularly wanted todelineate British India’s boundaries in Kashmir in the north with China’sXinjiang Province, as well as British India’s borders in the east with Tibet (asemi-autonomous state under Chinese suzerainty), thereby establishing a commonBritish India-China border across the towering Himalaya Mountains. 

In 1865, the Survey of India published a boundary for Kashmir that included the 37,000 square-kilometer AksaiChin region (Figure 43), a barren, uninhabited high-altitude (22,000 feet)desert containing salt and soda flats. However, this delineation, called the Johnson Line (named after WilliamJohnson, a British surveyor), was rejected by the British government.

In 1893, a Chinese official in Kashgar proposed to theBritish that the Laktsang Range serve as the British India-China border, withthe Lingzi Tang Plains to its south to become part of Kashmir and Aksai Chin toits north to become part of China.  The proposal found favor with the British,who in 1899, drew the Macartney-MacDonald Line (named after George Macartney,the British consul-general in Kashgar and Claude MacDonald, a Britishdiplomat), which was presented to the Chinese government.  The latter did not respond, which the Britishtook to mean that the Chinese agreed with the Line.  Thereafter, up until about 1908, British mapsof Indiafeatured the Macartney-MacDonald Line (Figure 44) as the China-Indiaborder.  However, by the 1920s, theBritish published new maps using the Johnson Line as the Kashmir-Xinjiangborder.

Similarly, British authorities took steps to establishBritish India’s boundaries with Tibetand China.  For this purpose, in 1913-1914, in a seriesof negotiations held in Simla (present-day Shimla in northern India), representatives from China, Tibet,and British India agreed on the territorial limits between “Outer Tibet” and British India. Outer Tibetwas to be formed as an autonomous Tibetan polity under Chinese suzerainty.  However, the Chinese delegate objected to theproposed border between “Outer Tibet” and “Inner Tibet”, and walked out of theconference.  Tibetan and Britishrepresentatives continued with the conference, leading to the Simla Accord(1914) which established the McMahon Line (named after Henry McMahon, theForeign Secretary of British India). Inparticular, some 80,000 square kilometers became part of British India, which later was administered as the North-East FrontierAgency (NEFA).  The Tawang area, locatednear the Bhutan-Tibet-India junction, also was ceded to British India and would become a major battleground in the Sino-IndianWar.

The Chinese government rejected the Simla Accord, statingthat Tibet, as a politicalsubordinate of China,could not enter into treaties with foreign governments.  The British also initially were averse toimplementing the Simla Accord, as it ran contrary to the 1907 Anglo-RussianConvention which recognized China’ssuzerainty over Tibet.  But with Russiaand Britainagreeing to void the 1907 Convention, the British established the McMahon Line(Figure 44) as the Tibet-India border. By the 1930s, the British government had begun to use the McMahon Linein its British Indian maps.

In August 1947, British rule in Indiaended with the partition of British India into the independent countries of India and Pakistan.  Meanwhile, for much of the first half of the20th century, China convulsed in a multitude of conflicts: the Revolution of1911 which ended 2,000 years of imperial rule; the fracturing of China duringthe warlord era (1916-1928); the Japanese invasion and occupation of Manchuriain 1931, and then of other parts of China in 1937-1945; and the Chinese CivilWar (1927-1949) between Communist and Nationalist forces.  By 1949, communist forces had prevailed inthe civil war and in October of that year, Mao Zedong, Chairman of theCommunist Party of China, proclaimed the formation of the People’s Republic of China(PRC).

The government of Indian Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru wasamong the first in the international community to recognize the PRC, and in theyears that followed, sought to cultivate strong Indian-Chinese relations.

In the early 1950s, a series of diplomatic and culturalexchanges between India and China led in April 1954 to an eight-year agreementcalled the Panchsheel Treaty (Sanskrit, panch, meaning five, and sheel, meaningvirtues), otherwise known as the Five Principles of Peaceful Coexistence, whichwas meant to form the basis for good relations between India and China.  The Panscheel five principles are: mutualrespect for each other’s territorial integrity and sovereignty; mutualnon-aggression; mutual non-interference in each other’s internal affairs;equality and cooperation for mutual benefit; and peaceful co-existence.  The slogan “Indians and Chinese are brothers”(Hindi: Hindi China bhai bhai) was popular and Prime Minister Nehru advocated aSino-Indian “Asian Axis” to serve as a counter-balance to the American-Soviet ColdWar rivalry.

However, the poorly defined India-China border wouldovercome these attempts to establish warm bilateral relations.  From the outset, Indiaand Chinaclaimed ownership over Aksai Chin and NEFA. India released mapsthat essentially duplicated the British-era maps which showed both areas aspart of India.  China likewise claimed sovereigntyover these areas, but also stated that as it had not signed any border treatieswith the former British Indian government, the India-China border must beresolved through new negotiations.

Two events caused Sino-Indian relations to deterioratefurther.  First, in the 1950s, China built a road through Aksai Chin thatlinked Xinjiang and Tibet.  Second, in 1959, in the aftermath of a failedTibetan uprising against the Chinese occupation forces in Tibet, the Indian government provided refuge in India for the Dalai Lama, Tibet’s political and spiritualleader.  Earlier in 1950, China had invaded and annexed Tibet.  The Indian government had hoped that Tibet would remain an independent state (and a bufferzone between India and China, as it had been in the colonial era), butin the early 1950s period of friendly Sino-Indian relations, India did not oppose Chinese military action in Tibet.

November 3, 1969 – Vietnam War: U.S. President Richard Nixon delivers his “silent majority” speech in relation to the Vietnam War

On November 3, 1969, U.S. President Richard Nixon addressedthe nation on television and radio in what became known as the “silentmajority” speech. In his address, Nixon stated “…to you, the great silentmajority of my fellow Americans—I ask for your support” in reference to theongoing Vietnam War. Nixon was continuing his predecessor President Lyndon B.Johnson’s program of “Vietnamization”, that is, the gradual Americandisengagement from the war with the South Vietnamese military gradually takingover the fighting after a period of being built up. During his presidentialcampaign, Nixon had stated that he had a “secret plan” to end the war, whichanti-war advocates believed was a quick end of American involvement in Vietnam.But once in office, Nixon continued with the United States being involved in thewar, stating that a sudden withdrawal “would result in a collapse of confidencein American leadership” and that “a nation cannot remain great if it betraysits allies and lets down its friends”.

In October 1969, protesters staged a giant rally in Washington, D.C.,prompting President Nixon to address the nation on November 3 with his “silentmajority” speech. In it, he stated that the United States must continue withgradual disengagement from the war, achieving “peace with honor”. He concludedby appealing to the “great silent majority” for support. A White House officiallater stated that “silent majority” refers to “a large and normallyundemonstrative cross-section of the country that…refrained from articulatingits opinions on the war”. Nixon also said that he would not be “dictated by aminority staging demonstrations in the streets”.

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

Nixon and the VietnamWar In 1969, newly elected U.S.president, Richard Nixon, who took office in January of that year, continuedwith the previous government’s policy of American disengagement and phasedtroop withdrawal from Vietnam,while simultaneously expanding Vietnamization, with U.S. military advice and materialsupport.  He also was determined toachieve his election campaign promise of securing a peace settlement with North Vietnam under the Parispeace talks, ironically through the use of force, if North Vietnam refused to negotiate.

In February 1969, the Viet Cong again launched a large-scaleTet-like coordinated offensive across South Vietnam, attacking villages,towns, and cities, and American bases. Two weeks later, the Viet Cong launched another offensive.  Because of these attacks, in March 1968, onPresident Nixon’s orders, U.S.planes, including B-52 bombers, attacked Viet Cong/North Vietnamese bases ineastern Cambodia(along the Ho Chi Minh Trail).  Thisbombing campaign, codenamed Operation Menu, lasted 14 months (until May 1970),and segued into Operation Freedom Deal (May 1970-August 1973), with the lattertargeting a wider insurgent-held territory in eastern Cambodia.

In the 1954 Geneva Accords, Cambodia had declared itsneutrality in regional conflicts, a policy it maintained in the early years ofthe Vietnam War.  However, by the early1960s, Cambodia’s reigningmonarch, Norodom Sihanouk, came under great pressure by the escalating war in Vietnam, and especially after 1963, when NorthVietnamese forces occupied sections of eastern Cambodiaas part of the Ho Chi Minh Trail system to South Vietnam.  Then in the mid-1960s, Sihanouk signedsecurity agreements with Chinaand North Vietnam, where inexchange for receiving economic incentives, he acquiesced to the NorthVietnamese occupation of eastern Cambodia.  He also allowed the use of the port of Sihanoukville(located in southern Cambodia)for shipments from communist countries for the Viet Cong/NLF through a newlyopened land route across Cambodia.  This new route, called the Sihanouk Trail(Figure 5) by the Western media, became a major alternative logistical systemby North Vietnamduring the period of intense American air operations over the Laotian side ofthe Ho Chi Minh Trail.

In July 1968, under strong local and regional pressures,Sihanouk re-opened diplomatic relations with the United States, and his governmentswung to being pro-West.  However, inMarch 1970, he was overthrown in a coup, and a hard-line pro-U.S. governmentunder President Lon Nol abolished the monarchy and restructured the country asthe Khmer Republic.  For Cambodia,the spill-over of the Vietnam War into its territory would have disastrousconsequences, as the fledging communist Khmer Rouge insurgents would soonobtain large North Vietnamese support that would plunge Cambodia into a full-scale civilwar.  For the United States (and SouthVietnam), the pro-U.S. Lon Nol government served as a green light for American(and South Vietnamese) forces to conduct military operations in Cambodia.

The U.S.bombing operations on Viet Cong/North Vietnamese bases in eastern Cambodia forced North Vietnam to increase its military presence in other partsof Cambodia.  The North Vietnamese Army seized controlparticularly of northeastern Cambodia,where its forces defeated and expelled the Cambodian Army.  Then in response to the Cambodian government’srequest for military assistance, starting in late April to early May 1970,American and South Vietnamese forces launched a major ground offensive intoeastern Cambodia.  The main U.S. objective was to clear theregion of the North Vietnamese/Viet Cong in order to allow the planned Americandisengagement from the Vietnam War to proceed smoothly and on schedule.  The offensive also served as a gauge of the progress of Vietnamization, particularlythe performance of the South Vietnamese Army in large-scale operations.

In the nearly three-month successful operation (known as theCambodian Campaign) which lasted until July 1970, American and South Vietnameseforces, which at their peak numbered over 100,000 troops, uncovered severalabandoned major Viet Cong/North Vietnamese bases and dozens of undergroundstorage bunkers containing huge quantities of materiel and supplies.  In all, American and South Vietnamese troopscaptured over 20,000 weapons, 6,000 tons of rice, 1,800 tons of ammunition, 29tons of communications equipment, over 400 vehicles, and 55 tons of medicalsupplies.  Some 10,000 Viet Cong/NorthVietnamese were killed in the fighting, although the majority of their forces(some 40,000) fled deeper into Cambodia.  However, the campaign failed to achieve oneof its objectives: capturing the Viet Cong/NLF leadership COSVN (Central Officefor South Vietnam).  The Nixon administration also came underdomestic political pressure: in December 1970, and U.S. Congress passed a lawthat prohibited U.S. ground forces from engaging in combat inside Cambodia andLaos.

Before the Cambodian Campaign began, President Nixon hadannounced in a nationwide broadcast that he had committed U.S. ground troops to theoperation.  Within days, largedemonstrations of up to 100,000 to 150,000 protesters broke out in the United States,with the unrest again centered in universities and colleges.  On May 4, 1970, at Kent State University, Ohio,National Guardsmen opened fire on a crowd of protesters, killing four people andwounding eight others.  This incidentsparked even wider, increasingly militant and violent protests across thecountry.  Anti-war sentiment already wasintense in the United Statesfollowing news reports in November 1969 of what became known as the My LaiMassacre, where U.S. troopson a search and destroy mission descended on My Laiand My Khe villages and killed between 347 and 504 civilians, including womenand children.

American public outrage further was fueled when in June1971, the New York Times began publishing the “Pentagon Papers” (officiallytitled: United States– Vietnam Relations, 1945–1967: A Study Prepared by the Department of Defense),a highly classified study by the U.S. Department of Defense that was leaked tothe press.  The Pentagon Papers showedthat successive past administrations, including those of Presidents Truman,Eisenhower, and Kennedy, but especially of President Johnson, had many timesmisled the American people regarding U.S.involvement in Vietnam.  President Nixon sought legal grounds to stopthe document’s publication for national security reasons, but the U.S. SupremeCourt subsequently decided in favor of the New York Times and publicationcontinued, and which was also later taken up by the Washington Post and other newspapers.

As in Cambodia,the U.S. high command hadlong desired to launch an offensive into Laos to cut off the logisticalportion of the Ho Chi Minh Trail system located there.  But restrained by Laos’ official neutrality,the U.S. military instead carried out secret bombing campaigns in eastern Laosand intelligence gathering operations (the latter conducted by the top-secretMilitary Assistance Command, Vietnam – Studies and Observations Group, MACV-SOGthat involved units from Special Forces, Navy SEALS, U.S. Marines, U.S. AirForce, and CIA) there.

The success of the Cambodian Campaign encouraged PresidentNixon to authorize a similar ground operation into Laos.  But as U.S. Congress had prohibited Americanground troops from entering Laos,South Vietnamese forces would launch the offensive into Laos with the objective of destroying the Ho ChiMinh Trail, with U.S. forcesonly playing a supporting role (and remaining within the confines of South Vietnam).  The operation also would gauge the combatcapability of the South Vietnamese Army in the ongoing Vietnamization program.

November 2, 1949 – Indonesian War of Independence: The Netherlands and the Indonesian revolutionary government agree to establish the United States of Indonesia

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

By late 1946, the British military had completed its missionin the Dutch East Indies (present-day Indonesia), that of repatriating Japaneseforces to Japan and freeing the Allied prisoners of war following the end ofWorld War II.  By December 1946, Britishforces had departed from the islands, but not before setting up mediation talksbetween the Dutch government (which wanted to restore colonial rule) andIndonesian revolutionaries (which desired independence), an initiative that ledthe two sides to agree to a ceasefire in October 1946.  Earlier in June 1946, the Dutch governmentand representatives of ethnic and religious groups and the aristocracy fromSulawesi, Maluku, West New Guinea, and other eastern states met in SouthSulawesi and agreed to form a federal-type government attached to theNetherlands.  In talks held with theIndonesian revolutionaries, Dutch authorities presented a similar proposalwhich on November 12, 1946, produced the Linggadjati Agreement, where the twosides agreed to establish a federal system known as the United States ofIndonesia (USI) by January 1, 1949.  The Republic of Indonesia(consisting of Java, Madura, and Sumatra) would comprise one state under USI;in turn, USI and the Netherlandswould form the Netherlands-Indonesian Union, with each polity being a fullysovereign state but under the symbolic authority of the Dutch monarchy.

This Agreement met strong opposition in the Indonesiangovernment but eventually was ratified in February 1947 with strong pressurefor its passage being exerted by Sukarno and Hatta.  In December 1946 in South Sulawesi, Pemuda fighters who opposed the agreement restarted hostilities.  Dutch forces, led by Captain RaymondWesterling, used brutal methods to quell the rebellion, killing some 3,000Pemuda fighters.  The Agreement also wasresisted in the Netherlands,but in March 1947, a modified version was passed in the House ofRepresentatives of the Dutch parliament.

Then in July 1947, declaring that the Indonesian governmentdid not fully comply with the Agreement, Dutch forces launched OperationProduct, a military offensive (which the Dutch government called a “police action”)in Java and Sumatra, seizing control of the vital economic regions, includingsugar-producing areas in Java, and the rubber plantations in Medan, andpetroleum and coal facilities in Palembang and Padang.  Dutch ships also imposed a naval blockade ofthe ports, restricting the Indonesian Republic’s economiccapacity.

In early 1947, acting on the diplomatic initiative of India and Australia, the United NationsSecurity Council (UNSC) released Resolution 27, which called on the two sidesto stop fighting and enter into peaceful negotiations.  On August 5, 1947, a ceasefire came intoeffect. A stipulation in Resolution 27 established the Committee of Good Office(CGO), a three-person body consisting of representatives, one named by the Netherlands, another by Indonesia, and a third, mutuallyagreed by both sides.  In subsequentnegotiations, the two sides agreed to form the Van Mook Line to delineate theirrespective areas of control which, because of the fighting, the Dutch-held territoriesin Java and Sumatra increased, while those of the Indonesian Republicdecreased.

In January 1948, the two sides signed the Renville Agreement(named after the USS Renville, a U.S. Navy ship where the negotiations wereheld), which confirmed their respective territories in the Van Mook Line, andin the Dutch-held areas, a referendum would be held to decide whether theresidents there wanted to be under Indonesian or Dutch control.  Furthermore, in exchange for Indonesianforces withdrawing from Dutch-held areas as stipulated in the Van Mook Line,the Dutch Navy would end its blockade of the ports.

The Indonesian Republic, already weakened politically andmilitarily, was undermined further when its Islamic supporters in nowDutch-controlled West Java objected to the Renville Agreement and broke away toform Darul Islam (“Islamic State”), with the ultimate aim of turning Indonesiainto an Islamic country.  It opposed boththe Indonesian government and Dutch colonial authorities.  Darul Islam subsequently would be defeated onlyin 1962, some 13 years after the war had ended.

The Indonesian Republic also faced opposition from its othererstwhile allies, the communists (of the Indonesian Communist Party) and thesocialists (of the Indonesian Socialist Party), who in September 1948, secededand formed the “Indonesian Soviet Republic”in Madiun, East Java.  Fighting in September-October and continuinguntil December 1948 eventually led to the Indonesian Republicquelling the Madiun uprising, with tens of thousands of communists killed orimprisoned and their leaders executed or forced into exile.  Furthermore, the Indonesian Army itself wasplagued with internal problems, because the government, suffering from acutefinancial difficulties and unable to pay the soldiers’ salaries, had disbandeda number of military units.

With the Indonesian revolutionary government experiencinginternal problems, on December 19, 1948, Dutch forces launched Operation Kraai(“Operation Crow”), another “police action” on the contention that Indonesian guerillashad infiltrated the Van Mook Line and were carrying out subversive actionsinside Dutch-held areas in violation of the Renville Agreement.  Operation Kraai caught the revolutionariesoff guard, forcing the Indonesian Army to retreat to the countryside to avoidbeing annihilated.  As a result, Dutchforces captured large sections of Indonesian-held areas, including theRepublic’s capital, Yogyakarta.  Sukarno, Hatta, and other Republican leaderswere captured without resistance and exiled, this action being deliberate ontheir part, as they believed that this latest aggression by the Dutch militarywould be condemned by the international community.  Before allowing himself to be captured,Sukarno activated a clandestine “emergency government” in West Sumatra (to act as a caretaker government), which he had arrangedbeforehand as a contingency measure.

On December 24, 1948, the UNSC passed Resolution 63 whichdemanded the end of hostilities and the immediate release of Sukarno and otherIndonesian leaders.  Also by this time,the international media had taken hold of the conflict.  The United States also exerted pressure on the Dutch government,threatening to cut off Marshall Plan aid for the Netherlands’ post-World War IIreconstruction.  Operation Kraii alsogenerated division within USI as the Cabinets of Dutch-controlled states of East Indonesia and Pasundan resigned in protest of theDutch military actions. As a result of these pressures, a ceasefire was agreedby the two sides, which came into effect in Java (on December 31, 1948) and Sumatra (on January 5, 1949).

November 1, 1922 – Turkish War of Independence: The new nation of Turkey abolishes the Ottoman Sultanate

On October 29, 1923, the Republicof Turkey was established with Ankara as its capital andMustafa Kemal as first president. This followed the successful Turkish War ofIndependence. One year earlier, on November 1, 1922, the Grand NationalAssembly (the Turkish national parliament), abolished the Ottoman Sultanate,forcing the Sultan Mehmed VI to abdicate and leave for exile abroad. The Ottoman Empire ended, and 600 years of Ottoman dynasticrule came to an end. In March 1924, the Caliphate was abolished, and Turkeytransitioned to a secular, democratic state, which it is to this day.

(Taken from The Ottoman Empire – Wars of the 20th Century – Volume 3)

The imperial Islamic power known as the Ottoman Empire has its origin as one of many semi-independent Turkishtribal states (called beyliks) that formed during the breakdown and collapse ofthe Seljuk Turkish Empire.  Founded byOsman I (whose name was anglicized to Ottoman and from whom the empire derivedits name), the Ottoman beylik achieved sovereignty from the Seljuk Sultanate in1299.  With the influx of large numbersof Ghazi warriors (both Muslims and Christians) into his beylik, Osman built anarmy hoping to expand his domain at the expense of the tottering Byzantine Empire* situated to the west of his beylik.

In 1324, the Ottomans captured Bursa,where they established their new capital; Bursa’sfall also ended the Byzantine Empire’s presence in Anatolia.  On Osman’s death in 1326, the succession ofOttoman rulers, first by Osman’s son Orhan, continued to expand the emergingempire.  In 1387, Thessalonica was taken,marking the Ottomans’ first entry into Europe(via the southeast), a presence that would last, except for a brief pause, forsix centuries.  Further expansion intoBalkan Europe continued during the second half of the 1300s with the defeats ofthe Serbian and Bulgarian empires, and annexation of sections of what comprisemodern-day Serbia, Bulgaria, Macedonia,and Albania.

In 1402, Ottoman power was briefly eclipsed when Tamerlane,the Turkic-Mongol conqueror, invaded Anatolia.  Bayezid, the Ottoman ruler, was captured byTamerlane in battle, starting a turbulent period in the Ottoman court known asthe Ottoman Interregnum.  After aneleven-year power struggle among Bayezid’s sons for succession to the throne,Mehmed I prevailed and became the new sultan. With its leadership crisis resolved, the Ottomans resumed their campaignin Europe, recapturing parts of the Balkansthat had been lost during the interregnum.

By the mid-fifteenth century, Constantinople, the Byzantine Empire’s capital, had been surrounded byOttoman territories.  In early April1453, the Ottomans launched an attack on the city, starting a six-week siege onthe nearly impregnable fortress that was protected by two layers of defensivestone walls.  On May 29, 1453, the wallswere breached, and Constantinople fell.  The Ottomans then moved their capital to Constantinople.

Constantinople’s fall sent shock waves across Western Europe, which at that time was made up of manysmall rival Christian kingdoms, duchies, and principalities, and which allfeared falling under Muslim rule.  TheOttomans advanced further into Europe with the invasion of lands that comprisepresent-day Bulgaria, Serbia, Bosnia-Herzegovina,Croatia, Macedonia, Montenegro,and Albania.  Other conquests also were made in parts ofmodern-day Hungary and Romania.  The invasion of Greecebegan with the capture of Athensin 1458; by the end of the century, most of the Greek mainland had beentaken.  By the first quarter of thesixteenth century, nearly all of the Balkans and some sections of eastern andcentral Europe were under Ottomancontrol.  However, two attempts (in 1529and 1532) to take Vienna failed, which wereresisted by the combined forces of the Habsburg monarchy of Austria and its Christian allies.

Under the rule of Suleiman the Magnificent, the Ottomansreached the height of their power.  InAnatolia, other Turkish beyliks were defeated, making the Ottoman Sultan themaster of Asia Minor.  Suleiman’s forces also advanced into westernAsia and northern Africa, incorporating moreterritories to those previously won under the previous rulers, Mehmed II andSelim I.  In the east, Mesopotamia(present-day Iraq) also wastaken, while in the south, the Ottomans advanced into the Arabian Peninsula.

            Ottomanexpansion continued up to the mid-seventeenth century.  By then, the empire extended from Baghdad to Algeriaand from the Caucasus to eastern Europe.  The Ottomans owed much of their militarysuccess to their Janissary Army, an elite corps made up of professionalsoldiers.  At its peak and like theByzantine Empire before it, the Ottoman Empire was the wealthiest state inEurope, since its strategically located capital of Constantinople allowed theOttomans to control the main trade routes of the Silk Road that connectedEurope and Asia.  Furthermore, peace prevailed in conqueredlands, as the Ottoman Empire did not carry outforced conversion to Islam, but allowed its subjects to freely practice theirown faiths.  As well as diversity inreligion, the empire also contained many ethnicities, cultures, and languages,an aspect that ultimately would contribute to the Ottomans’ fall.

In May 1683, a major Ottoman offensive in Vienna was defeated by the Holy League, analliance of the Habsburg, German, and Polish forces.  This defeat marked the farthest extent of theOttoman advance into Europe and the start ofthe empire’s decline.

Then in the 1600s onward, Western Europe made rapid advances in the development of science andtechnology, leading to the production of stronger weapons.  The West also became wealthy; starting in1498 when the Portuguese discovered the sea route to Asia, the Ottoman Empire’s monopoly on the Silk trade ended.  Furthermore, Europe’s discovery anddevelopment of the New World brought enormousriches to the emerging Western European empires.

At the same time, the Ottoman Empireexperienced a long period of stagnation, where its economy floundered,bureaucratic corruption prevailed, and a rising inward-looking, Islam-centeredelement in government resisted the demands to carry out reforms.

Then, wars in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuriesagainst the Austrian Empire, and especially against the rising Russian Empire,revealed for the first time, the weakening Ottoman power.  In the Crimean War of 1853-1856, British andFrench forces intervened to prevent the Russians from seizing large parts ofOttoman territory, including Constantinopleitself.

Then after its defeat in the Russo-Turkish War of 1877-1878,the Ottoman Empire was forced to allow Romania,Serbia, and Montenegro to achieve their independences, whileBulgaria,though remaining under Ottoman rule, became de facto sovereign with its owngovernment.  Some fifty years earlier, in1832, Greecehad won its own war of independence, which ended four centuries of Ottomanrule.  By the 1800s, the Ottoman Empirewas referred to disparagingly as the “sick man of Europe”,since it was unable to defend its territories against attacks by Europeanpowers.

The Ottoman demise came following World War I, where the Ottoman Empire emerged as a spent power after throwingits support behind the Central Powers, which likewise was defeated in thewar.  As a result, the Ottoman Empire lost all its remaining colonies and was itself partitioned bythe victorious Allied Powers.  Turkishnationalists, led by Mustafa Kemal (whose surname “Ataturk” was added later),then emerged and began the Turkish War of Independence (separate article),which established the modern state of Turkey, consisting of the Turkishheartland of Anatolia as well as eastern Thrace, a sliver of land in theEuropean mainland.

October 31, 1956 – Suez Crisis: Britain and France launch bombing attacks in Egypt to force the reopening of the Suez Canal

As per the agreed plan, Britain and Francesent ultimatums to the governments of Israeland Egypt,on October 30.  Egypt, however, refused to withdraw from the Suez Canal.  Britain and France now intervenedmilitarily.  On October 31, the Britishcarried out air strikes in Cairoand other key Egyptian sites.  OnNovember 5, British and French paratroopers landed in Port Said, located at the northern tip of the Suez Canal.  The next day,British Marines stormed the beaches of Port Said.

(Taken from Suez Crisis – Wars of the 20th Century – Volume 2)

Background The Suez Canal in Egyptis a man-made shipping waterway that connects the Mediterranean Sea and theIndian Ocean via the Red Sea (Map 7).  The Suez Canal was completed by a Frenchengineering firm in 1869 and thereafter became the preferred shipping and traderoute between Europe and Asia, as itconsiderably reduced the travel time and distance from the previous circuitousroute around the African continent. Since 1875, the facility was operated by an Anglo-French privateconglomerate.  By the twentieth century,nearly two-thirds of all oil tanker traffic to Europe passed through the Suez Canal.

In the late 1940s, a wave of nationalismswept across Egypt,leading to the overthrow of the ruling monarchy and the establishment of arepublic.  In 1951, intense publicpressure forced the Egyptian government to abolish the Anglo-Egyptian Treaty of1936, although the agreement was yet to expire in three years.

With the rise in power of the Egyptiannationalists led by Gamal Abdel Nasser (who later became president in 1956), Britain agreed to withdraw its military forcesfrom Egyptafter both countries signed the Anglo-Egyptian Agreement of 1954.  The last British troops left Egyptin June 1956.  Nevertheless, theagreement allowed the British to use its existing military base located nearthe Suez Canal for seven years and the possibility of its extension if Egyptwas attacked by a foreign power.  TheAnglo-Egyptian Agreement of 1954 and foreign control of the Suez Canal wereresented by many Egyptians, especially the nationalists, who believed thattheir country was still under semi-colonial rule and not truly sovereign.

Furthermore, President Nasser washostile to Israel,which had dealt the Egyptian Army a crushing defeat in the 1948 Arab-IsraeliWar.  President Nasser wanted to startanother war with Israel.  Conversely, the Israeli government believedthat Egypt was behind theterrorist activities that were being carried out in Israel.  The Israelis also therefore were ready to goto war against Egyptto put an end to the terrorism.

Egypt and Israelsought to increase their weapons stockpiles through purchases from their mainsuppliers, the United States,Britain, and France.  The three Western powers, however, had agreedamong themselves to make arms sales equally and only in limited quantities to Egypt and Israel, to prevent an arms race.

Friendly relations between Israel and France, however, were moving towarda military alliance.  By early 1955, France was sending large quantities of weaponsto Israel.  In Egypt,President Nasser was indignant at the Americans’ conditions to sell him arms:that the weapons were not to be used against Israel,and that U.S. advisers wereto be allowed into Egypt.  President Nasser, therefore, approached theSoviet Union, which agreed to support Egypt militarily.  In September 1955, large amounts of Sovietweapons began to arrive in Egypt.

The United States and Britain were infuriated.  The Americans believed that Egypt was falling under the sphere of influenceof the Soviet Union, their Cold Warenemy.  Adding to this perception wasthat Egyptrecognized Red China.  Meanwhile, Britainfelt that its historical dominance in the Arab region was beingundermined.  The United States and Britain withdrew their earlierpromise to President Nasser to fund his ambitious project, the construction ofthe massive Aswan Dam.

Egyptian troops then seized the Suez Canal, which President Nasser immediatelynationalized with the purpose of using the profits from its operations to helpbuild the Aswan Dam.  President Nasserordered the Anglo-French firm operating the Suez Canal to leave; he alsoterminated the firm’s contract, even though its 99-year lease with Egypt stillwas due to expire in 12 years, in 1968.

The Britishand French governments were angered by Egypt’sseizure of the Suez Canal.  A few days later, Britainand France decided to takearmed action: their military leaders met and began to prepare for an invasionof Egypt.  In September 1956, Franceand Israel also jointlyprepared for war against Egypt.

The Suez Crisis was a war between Egypt against the alliance of Britain, France, and Israel for control of the politically and economically vital Suez Canal, a man-modified shipping channel that connects the Mediterranean Sea and the Red Sea

The three countries had variousreasons for wanting to start the war.  Britain and Francewanted to regain control of the Suez Canal.  The British wanted to reassert itself in theregion.  The French were embroiled in acolonial war in Algeriaagainst rebels whom they believed were being funded by President Nasser.  Israelwanted to stop the local terrorism which it attributed to Egypt’s instigation.  Furthermore, Israeli commercial vessels wereblocked from entering the Suez Canal after Egypt seized the waterway.

By October 1956, the invasion plan hadbeen finalized, which was to play out this way: Israelwould invade the Sinai Peninsula, prompting Egypt to react militarily.  Britainand France then would issueultimatums to Israel and Egypt to withdraw 16 miles from the Suez Canal, purportedly to prevent an escalation of theconflict.  Britainand France then would takecontrol of the Suez Canal, declaring thattheir presence in the region was necessary to protect the vital waterway.

October 30, 1980 – Football War: El Salvador and Honduras sign a peace agreement and agree to refer their border dispute to the International Court of Justice

In October 1980, more than a decade after the war,El Salvador and Honduras signeda final peace agreement and raised the issue of their imprecise border to theInternational Court of Justice, or ICJ.  The two countries agreed torespect the ICJ’s decision.  In October 1992, the ICJ awarded two-thirdsof the undefined areas to Hondurasand the rest (one-third) to El Salvador.  A definite border also wasestablished.

(Taken from Football War – Wars of the 20th Century – Vol. 1)

Background During the 1920s, El Salvadorexperienced great social and economic stresses resulting from the followingfactors: the loss of agricultural lands to wealthy plantation owners, thecountry’s diminishing natural resources, high levels of unemployment, and arapid population growth.  As a result, many Salvadorans crossed the borderinto neighboring Honduras,which was less densely populated, largely undeveloped, and much more spacious,as it was five times bigger than El Salvador.  The influx ofSalvadorans into Hondurascontinued for the next forty years and progressively spread further inland.

By the1960s, Salvadorans constituted 10% of Honduras’ population and 20% of itswork force, with their livelihoods as diverse as subsidence farmers, farm andindustry workers, and even shop owners in towns and cities.  Morecritically, Salvadoran farmers did not register their lands nor did Salvadoransin general acquire Honduran citizenship, making them undocumented foreigners inHonduras.

Initially,Honduras’vast frontier readily absorbed the large Salvadoran influx.  Furthermore, Honduras’ border with El Salvador was porous andimproperly demarcated ever since the two countries gained their independencesin the 1840s.  Hondurasand El Salvadorhad signed a number of treaties intended to regulate human traffic into eachother’s territories, but these were not implemented strictly.

Then in1966, large corporations in the Honduran agricultural industry called upon thegovernment to ensure the rights of Hondurans to their lands.  Thesecorporations also accused Salvadoran farmers of illegally possessing Honduranlands.  Consequently, an anti-Salvadoran sentiment developed among theHonduran population.

Theanti-Salvadoran sentiment presented the Honduran government the perfectopportunity to deflect away from Honduras’ economic and laborproblems and instead fault the Salvadoran immigrants for all the country’sills.  Adding to the Hondurans’ anti-Salvadoran sentiment was El Salvador’s much higher economic productivitycompared to Honduras. And within the Central American Common Market, the region’s trade organization,El Salvador was a net exporterof commodities while Hondurasbought more goods than it sold.

Duringthe 1960s, Honduraspassed an agrarian reform law to support its agricultural modernization andexport diversification programs.  The land reform law limited ownership ofHonduran land to native-born citizens, thereby denying the Salvadoranimmigrants of all rights to their lands and farms.  In January 1969, Honduras did not renew the 1967 Bilateral Treatywith El Salvador, therebymaking it illegal for undocumented Salvadorans to enter Honduras.

By May1969, the land reform law in Honduraswas being fully implemented.  Thousands of dispossessed Salvadoranfamilies returned to El Salvador, causing a sudden surge in theSalvadoran population, and straining the country’s economic resources and thegovernment’s capacity to provide public services.  El Salvador condemned Honduras, generating tensions andanimosity on both sides.  Nationalistic sentiments were fueled bypropaganda and rhetoric spouted by the media from the two sides.

Such wasthe charged atmosphere leading up to the three football matches between El Salvador and Honduras in June 1969.  Thefirst match was played on June 8 in Tegucigalpa, Honduras’ capital, which was won by the hostteam.  Aside from some fans fighting in the stands, no major securitybreakdown occurred during the match.

In ElSalvador, however, soccer fans were infuriated by the result, believing theyhad been cheated.  The Salvadoran media described the football matches asepitomizing the “national honor”.  After the defeat, a despondentSalvadoran fan died after shooting herself.  Her death became a rallyingcry for Salvadorans who considered her a martyr.  Thousands ofSalvadorans, including the country’s president and other top governmentofficials, attended her funeral and joined the nation in mourning her death.

Thesecond match was played in El Salvador, and was won also by the home team,thereby leveling the series at one win apiece.  The tense situation duringthe game broke out in widespread violence across the capital, San Salvador. Street clashes led to many deaths, including those of Honduran fans.  As aprecaution, the Honduran football team was housed in an undisclosed locationand driven to the game in armored vehicles.  After the game, the Honduranteam’s vehicles plying the road back to Honduras were stoned while passingthrough Salvadoran towns.

In Honduras,the people retaliated by attacking and looting Salvadoran shops in Tegucigalpaand other cities and towns.  Armed bands of thugs roamed the countrysidetargeting Salvadorans – beating up and killing men, raping women, burninghouses, and destroying farms.  Thousands of Salvadorans fled toward theborder to El Salvador.  And as the prospect of war drew closer, Salvadoranand Honduran security forces guarding the border engaged in sporadic exchangesof gunfire.

Thethird, deciding football match was played on June 26 in Mexico City, which waswon by the Salvadoran team.  Two days earlier, Honduras had cut diplomaticrelations with El Salvador.  The Salvadoran government reciprocated onJune 26, accusing Honduras of committing “genocide” by killing Salvadoranimmigrants.  The two sides prepared for war by increasing their weaponsstockpiles, which were sourced from private dealers because the United Stateshad imposed an arms embargo.

October 29, 1956 – Suez Crisis: Israeli forces invade the Sinai Peninsula

On October 29, 1956, Israeli forces invaded the SinaiPeninsula during the Suez Crisis, which pitted the alliance of Israel, Britain,and France against Egypt for control of the Suez Canal. The three countries had various reasons for wanting tostart the war against Egypt.  Britainand France wanted to regaincontrol of the Suez Canal.  The British wanted to reassert itself in theregion.  The French were embroiled in acolonial war in Algeriaagainst rebels whom they believed were being funded by President Nasser.  Israelwanted to stop the local terrorism which it attributed to Egypt’s instigation.  Furthermore, Israeli commercial vessels wereblocked from entering the Suez Canal after Egypt seized the waterway.

In October 1956, the invasion plan had been finalized, whichwas to play out this way: Israelwould invade the Sinai Peninsula, prompting Egypt to react militarily.  Britainand France then would issueultimatums to Israel and Egypt to withdraw 16 miles from the Suez Canal, purportedly to prevent an escalation of theconflict.  Britainand France then would takecontrol of the Suez Canal, declaring thattheir presence in the region was necessary to protect the vital waterway.

(Taken from Suez Crisis – Wars of the 20th Century – Volume 2)

Background TheSuez Canal in Egypt is aman-made shipping waterway that connects the Mediterranean Sea and the IndianOcean via the Red Sea (Map 7).  The Suez Canal was completed by a Frenchengineering firm in 1869 and thereafter became the preferred shipping and traderoute between Europe and Asia, as itconsiderably reduced the travel time and distance from the previous circuitousroute around the African continent. Since 1875, the facility was operated by an Anglo-French privateconglomerate.  By the twentieth century,nearly two-thirds of all oil tanker traffic to Europe passed through the Suez Canal.

In the late 1940s, a wave of nationalism swept across Egypt,leading to the overthrow of the ruling monarchy and the establishment of arepublic.  In 1951, intense publicpressure forced the Egyptian government to abolish the Anglo-Egyptian Treaty of1936, although the agreement was yet to expire in three years.

With the rise in power of the Egyptian nationalists led byGamal Abdel Nasser (who later became president in 1956), Britain agreed to withdraw its military forcesfrom Egyptafter both countries signed the Anglo-Egyptian Agreement of 1954.  The last British troops left Egyptin June 1956.  Nevertheless, theagreement allowed the British to use its existing military base located nearthe Suez Canal for seven years and the possibility of its extension if Egyptwas attacked by a foreign power.  TheAnglo-Egyptian Agreement of 1954 and foreign control of the Suez Canal wereresented by many Egyptians, especially the nationalists, who believed thattheir country was still under semi-colonial rule and not truly sovereign.

Furthermore, President Nasser was hostile to Israel,which had dealt the Egyptian Army a crushing defeat in the 1948 Arab-IsraeliWar.  President Nasser wanted to startanother war with Israel.  Conversely, the Israeli government believedthat Egypt was behind theterrorist activities that were being carried out in Israel.  The Israelis also therefore were ready to goto war against Egyptto put an end to the terrorism.

Egypt andIsrael sought to increasetheir weapons stockpiles through purchases from their main suppliers, the United States, Britain,and France.  The three Western powers, however, had agreedamong themselves to make arms sales equally and only in limited quantities to Egypt and Israel, to prevent an arms race.

Friendly relations between Israeland France,however, were moving toward a military alliance.  By early 1955, Francewas sending large quantities of weapons to Israel.  In Egypt,President Nasser was indignant at the Americans’ conditions to sell him arms:that the weapons were not to be used against Israel,and that U.S. advisers wereto be allowed into Egypt.  President Nasser, therefore, approached theSoviet Union, which agreed to support Egypt militarily.  In September 1955, large amounts of Sovietweapons began to arrive in Egypt.

The United Statesand Britainwere infuriated.  The Americans believedthat Egypt was falling underthe sphere of influence of the Soviet Union,their Cold War enemy.  Adding to thisperception was that Egyptrecognized Red China.  Meanwhile, Britainfelt that its historical dominance in the Arab region was beingundermined.  The United States and Britain withdrew their earlierpromise to President Nasser to fund his ambitious project, the construction ofthe massive Aswan Dam.

Egyptian troops then seized the Suez Canal, which President Nasser immediately nationalized with thepurpose of using the profits from its operations to help build the AswanDam.  President Nasser ordered theAnglo-French firm operating the Suez Canal to leave; he also terminated thefirm’s contract, even though its 99-year lease with Egypt still was due to expirein 12 years, in 1968.

The British and French governments were angered by Egypt’s seizure of the Suez Canal.  A few days later, Britain and Francedecided to take armed action: their military leaders met and began to preparefor an invasion of Egypt.  In September 1956, Franceand Israel also jointlyprepared for war against Egypt.

October 28, 1940 – World War II: Italy invades Greece

Early on October 28, 1940, Italydelivered an ultimatum to Greecedemanding that Italian forces enter Greek territory and occupy unspecified“strategic locations”, or risk war. Supposedly, Greek Prime Minister IoannisMetaxas replied with the simple “No!”, although his actual reply was “So thisis war!”.

A few hours later, Italian forces in Albania, which weremassed at the Greek-Albanian border, opened their offensive along a 90-mile(150 km) front in two sectors: in Epirus, which comprised the main attackingforce; and in western Macedonia, where the Italian forces were to hold theirground inside Albania.  A third force wastasked to guard the Albania-Yugoslavia frontier.  The Italian offensive was launched in thefall season, and was expected to face difficult weather conditions inhigh-altitude mountain terrain, and be subject to snow, sleet, icy rain, fog,and heavy cloud cover.  However, theItalians were supplied only with summer clothing, and so were unprepared forthe inclement weather.  The Italians hadalso planned to seize Corfu, but which wascancelled due to bad weather.

(Taken from Greco-Italian War – Wars of the 20th Century – World War II in Europe: Vol. 6)

Background Greece had become alarmed by the Italianinvasion of Albania.  Greek Prime Minister Ioannis Metaxas, whoironically held fascist views and was pro-German, turned to Britain for assistance.  The British Royal Navy, which had bases in manyparts of the Mediterranean, including Gibraltar,Malta, Cyprus, Egypt,and Palestine, then made security stops in Crete and other Greek islands.

Italian-Greek relations, which were strained since the late1920s by Mussolini’s expansionist agenda, deteriorated further.  In 1940, Italyinitiated an anti-Greek propaganda campaign, which included the demand that theGreek region of Epirus mustbe ceded to Albania,since it contained a large ethnic Albanian population.  The Epirusclaim was popular among Albanians, who offered their support for Mussolini’sambitions on Greece.  Mussolini accused Greece of being a British puppet,citing the British naval presence in Greek ports and offshore waters.  In reality, he was alarmed that the BritishNavy lurking nearby posed a direct threat to Italyand hindered his plans to establish full control of the Adriatic and Ionian Seas.

Italythen launched armed provocations against Greece,which included several incidents in July-August 1940, where Italian planesattacked Greek vessels at Kissamos, Gulf of Corinth, Nafpaktos, and Aegina.  On August15, 1940, an undetected Italian submarine sank the Greek light cruiserElli.  Greek authorities found evidencethat pointed to Italian responsibility for the Elli sinking, but Prime MinisterMetaxas did not take any retaliatory action, as he wanted to avoid war with Italy.

Also in August 1940, Mussolini gave secret orders to hismilitary high command to start preparations for an invasion of Greece.  But in a meeting with Hitler, Mussolini wasprevailed upon by the German leader to suspend the invasion in favor of theItalian Army concentrating on defeating the British in North Africa.  Hitler wasconcerned that an Italian incursion in the Balkans would worsen the perennialstate of ethnic tensions in that region and perhaps prompt other major powers,such as the Soviet Union or Britain,to intervene there.  The Romanian oilfields at Ploiesti, which were extremely vitalto Germany,could then be threatened.  In August1940, unbeknown to Mussolini, Hitler had secretly instructed the Germany military high command to draw up plansfor his greatest project of all, the conquest of the Soviet Union.  And for thismonumental undertaking, Hitler wanted no distractions, including one in the Balkans.  In the fall of 1940, Mussolini deferred hisattack on Greece,and issued an order to demobilize 600,000 Italian troops.

Then on October 7, 1940, Hitler deployed German troops in Romaniaat the request of the new pro-Nazi government led by Prime Minister IonAntonescu.  Mussolini, upon beinginformed by Germany fourdays later, was livid, as he believed that Romania fell inside his sphere ofinfluence.  More disconcerting forMussolini was that Hitler had again initiated a major action without first notifyinghim.  Hitler had acted alone in hisconquests of Poland, Denmark, Norway,France, and the Low Countries, and had given notice to the Italians onlyafter the fact.  Mussolini was determinedthat Hitler’s latest stunt would be reciprocated with his own move against Greece.  Mussolini stated, “Hitler faces me with afait accompli.  This time I am going topay him back in his own coin. He will find out from the papers that I haveoccupied Greece.In this way, the equilibrium will be re-established.”

On October 13, 1940 and succeeding days, Mussolini finalizedwith his top military commanders the immediate implementation of the invasionplan for Greece, codenamed “Contingency G”, with Italian forces setting outfrom Albania.  A modification was made,where an initial force of six Italian divisions would attack the Epirusregion, to be followed by the arrival of more Italian troops.  The combined forces would advance to Athens and beyond, and capture the whole of Greece.  The modified plan was opposed by GeneralPietro Badoglio, the Italian Chief of Staff, who insisted that the originalplan be carried out: a full-scale twenty-division invasion of Greece with Athens as the immediate objective.  Other factors cited by military officers whowere opposed to immediate invasion were the need for more preparation time, therecent demobilization of 600,000 troops, and the inadequacy of Albanian portsto meet the expected large volume of men and war supplies that would be broughtin from Italy.

But Mussolini would not be dissuaded.  His decision to invade was greatly influencedby three officials: Foreign Minister Count Galeazzo Ciano (who was alsoMussolini’s son-in-law), who stated that most Greeks detested their government andwould not resist an Italian invasion; the Italian Governor-General of AlbaniaFrancesco Jacomoni, who told Mussolini that Albanians would support an Italianinvasion in return for Epirus being annexed to Albania; and the commander ofItalian forces in Albania General Sebastiano Prasca, who assured Mussolini thatItalian troops in Albania were sufficient to capture Epirus within twoweeks.  These three men were motivated bythe potential rewards to their careers that an Italian victory would have; forexample, General Prasca, like most Italian officers, coveted being conferredthe rank of “Field Marshall”. Mussolini’s order for the invasion had the following objectives,“Offensive in Epirus,observation and pressure on Salonika, and in a second phase, march on Athens”.

On October 18, 1940, Mussolini asked King Boris II of Bulgaria to participate in a joint attack on Greece, but the monarch declined, since underthe Balkan Pact of 1934, other Balkan countries would intervene for Greecein a Bulgarian-Greek war.  Deciding thatits border with Bulgaria wassecure from attack, the Greek government transferred half of its forcesdefending the Bulgarian border to Albania; as well, all Greekreserves were deployed to the Albanian front. With these moves, by the start of the war, Greek forces in Albaniaoutnumbered the attacking Italian Army.  Greecealso fortified its Albanian frontier. And because of Mussolini’s increased rhetoric and threats of attack, bythe time of the invasion, the Italians had lost the element of surprise.

October 27, 1962 – Cold War: An officer in a Soviet submarine refuses to fire nuclear torpedoes on U.S. ships, averting war

On October 27, 1962, a flotilla ofU.S. Navy destroyers tracking a Soviet submarine dropped grenade-size depthcharges as a signal for the submarine to surface and make identification.  Unknown to the U.S. ships, the submarine was armedwith nuclear torpedoes with authorization to launch them if the ship came underattack.  Vasily Arkhipov, a seniorofficer on board the Soviet submarine prevailed upon the commander not to fire;the submarine surfaced and later departed.

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

Background After the unsuccessful Bay ofPigs Invasion in April 1961 (previousarticle), the United Statesgovernment under President John F. Kennedy focused on clandestine methods tooust or kill Cuban leader Fidel Castro and/or overthrow Cuba’s communist government.  In November 1961, a U.S. covert operationcode-named Mongoose was prepared, which aimed at destabilizing Cuba’s politicaland economic infrastructures through various means, including espionage,sabotage, embargos, and psychological warfare. Starting in March 1962, anti-Castro Cuban exiles in Florida,supported by American operatives, penetrated Cuba undetected and carried outattacks against farmlands and agricultural facilities, oil depots andrefineries, and public infrastructures, as well as Cuban ships and foreignvessels operating inside Cuban maritime waters. These actions, together with the United States Armed Forces’ carryingout military exercises in U.S.-friendly Caribbean countries, made Castrobelieve that the United Stateswas preparing another invasion of Cuba.

From the time he seized power in Cuba in 1959, Castro had increased the size andstrength of his armed forces with weapons provided by the Soviet Union.  In Moscow,Soviet Premier Nikita Khrushchev also believed that anAmerican invasion was imminent, and increased Russian advisers, troops, andweapons to Cuba.  Castro’s revolution had provided communismwith a toehold in the Western Hemisphere andPremier Khrushchev was determined not to lose this invaluable asset.  At the same time, the Soviet leader began toface a security crisis of his own when the United States under the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) installed 300 Jupiternuclear missiles in Italyin 1961 and 150 missiles in Turkey(Map 33) in April 1962.

In the nuclear arms race between thetwo superpowers, the United Statesheld a decisive edge over the Soviet Union,both in terms of the number of nuclear missiles (27,000 to 3,600) and in thereliability of the systems required to deliver these weapons.    The American advantage was even morepronounced in long-range missiles, called ICBMs (Intercontinental BallisticMissiles), where the Soviets possessed perhaps no more than a dozen missileswith a poor delivery system in contrast to the United States that had about 170, which when launched from the U.S. mainland could accurately hit specifictargets in the Soviet Union.

The Soviet nuclear weapons technologyhad been focused on the more likely war in Europe and therefore consisted ofshorter range missiles, the MRBMs (medium-range ballistic missiles) and IRBMs (intermediate-range ballistic missiles), both of which if installed in Cuba, which was located only 100miles from southeastern United States, could target portions of the contiguous48 U.S. States.  In one stroke, such adeployment would serve Castro as a powerful deterrent against an Americaninvasion; for the Soviets, they would have invoked their prerogative to installnuclear weapons in a friendly country, just as the Americans had done in Europe.  Moreimportant, the presence of Soviet nuclear weapons in the Western Hemispherewould radically alter the global nuclear weapons paradigm by posing as a directthreat to the United States.

In April 1962, Premier Khrushchevconceived of such a plan, and felt that the United States would respond to itwith no more than a diplomatic protest, and certainly would not take militaryaction.  Furthermore, Premier Khrushchevbelieved that President Kennedy was weak and indecisive, primarily because ofthe American president’s half-hearted decisions during the failed Bay of PigsInvasion in April 1961, and President Kennedy’s weak response to the EastGerman-Soviet building of the Berlin Wall in August 1961.

NATO’s deployment of nuclear missiles in Turkey and Italy was a major factor in the Soviet Union’s decision to install nuclear weapons in Cuba

A Sovietdelegation sent to Cubamet with Fidel Castro, who gave his consent to Khrushchev’s proposal.  Subsequently in July 1962, Cuba and the Soviet Unionsigned an agreement pertinent to the nuclear arms deployment.  The planning and implementation of theproject was done in utmost secrecy, with only a few of the top Soviet and Cubanofficials being informed.  In Cuba,Soviet technical and military teams secretly identified the locations for thenuclear missile sites.

In August 1962, U.S. reconnaissance flights over Cubadetected the presence of powerful Soviet aircraft: 39 MiG-21 fighter aircraftand 22 nuclear weapons-capable Ilyushin Il-28 light bombers.  More disturbing was the discovery of the S-75Dvina surface-to-air missile batteries, which were known to be contingent tothe deployment of nuclear missiles.  Bylate August, the U.S.government and Congress had raised the possibility that the Soviets wereintroducing nuclear missiles in Cuba.

By mid-September, the nuclear missileshad reached Cubaby Soviet vessels that also carried regular cargoes of conventionalweapons.  About 40,000 Soviet soldiersposing as tourists also arrived to form part of Cuba’sdefense for the missiles and against a U.S. invasion.  By October 1962, the Soviet Armed Forces in Cubapossessed 1,300 artillery pieces, 700 regular anti-aircraft guns, 350 tanks,and 150 planes.