Daniel Orr's Blog, page 72

February 4, 1961 – Unrest spreads in the Angolan War of Independence

On February 3, 1961, farm laborers in Baixa do Cassanje,Malanje, rose up in protest over poor working conditions.  In the following days, the protest quicklyspread to many other regions, engulfing a wide area.  The Portuguese were forced to send warplanesthat strafed and firebombed many native villages.  Soon, the protest was quelled.

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

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

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

Background By the1830s, Portugal had lost Braziland had abolished its transatlantic slave trade.  To replace these two valuable sources ofincome, Portugalturned to develop its African possessions, including their interior lands.  In Angola, agriculture was developed,with the valuable export crops of coffee and cotton being grown in vastplantations.  The mining industry wasexpanded.

Portugal’s development of the local economy, including theconstruction of public infrastructures such as roads and bridges, was carriedout using forced labor of black Africans, a system that was so harsh, ruthless,and akin to slavery.  Consequently,thousands of natives fled from the colony. Indigenous lands were seized by the colonial government.  And while Angola’s economy grew, only thecolonizers benefited, while the overwhelming majority of natives were neglectedand deprived of education, health care, and other services.

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

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

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

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

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

February 3, 1969 – Mozambican War of Independence: Assassination of Eduardo Mondlane, founder and leader of the Mozambican Liberation Front (FRELIMO)

On February 3, 1969, Eduardo Mondlane, founder and leader ofthe Mozambican Liberation Front (FRELIMO), was killed in Dar es Salaam, Tanzania,from injuries sustained by a bomb explosion. The bomb was hidden inside a bookthat had been sent to the FRELIMO headquarters in Dar es Salaam, Tanzania.

In the ensuing power struggle among his followers, FRELIMO’s pro-democracy leaders were expelled and the organization came under the control of Marxists, led by Samora Machel, commander of the rebel forces.  Machel adopted a more aggressive approach to the war, increasing the number of rebel fighters, carrying out more guerilla and sabotage operations, and taking the unprecedented step of targeting Portuguese civilians and properties.  Under Machel’s leadership, FRELIMO increased its areas of control.

Portugal’s African possessions consisted of Angola, Mozambique, Portuguese-Guinea, Cape Verde, and Sao Tome & Principe.

(Taken from Mozambican War of Independence – Wars of the 20th Century – Volume 2)

Background AfterWorld War II ended in 1945, nationalist aspirations sprung up and spreadrapidly across Africa.  By the 1960s, most of the continent’scolonies had become independent countries. Portugal,however, was determined to maintain its empire. In 1951, Portugalceased to regard its African (and Asian) possessions as “colonies”, butintegrated them into the motherland as “overseas provinces”.  Tens of thousands of Portuguese citizensmigrated to Mozambique, aswell as to Angolaand Portuguese Guinea under the prodding of the national government to lead thedevelopment of the new “provinces”.

Because of the immigration, racial tensions, which alreadywere prevalent, escalated in Portugal’sAfrican territories.  Portugal tookgreat pride in its official policy of racial inclusiveness, and upheld in itsconstitution the “democratic, social, and multi-racial” features of Portuguesesociety.  However, the PortugueseOverseas Charter also recognized distinct socio-ethnic classes: citizens –European Portuguese who had full political rights; “assimilados” – blackAfricans who had assimilated the Portuguese way of life, could read and write,and were eligible to run for local and provincial elected office; and natives –the great majority of black Africans who retained their traditional ways oflife. 

The Portuguese monopolized the political and economicsystems of the colony, while the general population had limited access toeducation and upward social and economic mobility.  By the early 1960s, less than 1% of blackAfricans had attained “assimilado” status. The colonial government repressed political dissent, forcing manyMozambican nationalists into exile abroad, and used PIDE (Policia Internacionale de Defesa do Estado), Portugal’ssecurity service, to turn Mozambiqueinto a police state.

In June 1962, exiled Mozambican nationalists met in Dar esSalaam, Tanganyika, and merged three ethnic-based independence movements intoone nationalist organization, FRELIMO or Mozambique Liberation Front(Portuguese: Frente de Libertação de Moçambique).  Led by Eduardo Mondlane, FRELIMO initiallysought to gain Mozambique’sindependence by negotiating with the Portuguese government.  FRELIMO regarded the Portuguese as foreignerswho were exploiting Mozambique’shuman and natural resources, and were unconcerned with the development andwell-being of the indigenous black population.

By 1964, Portugal’sintransigence and the Mozambican colonial government’s repressive acts,including the so-called Mueda Massacre, where security forces opened fire on acrowd of demonstrators, had radicalized FRELIMO into believing that Mozambique’sindependence could only be gained through armed struggle.  Further motivating FRELIMO into starting arevolution was that Mozambique’sneighbors recently had achieved their independences, i.e. Tanzania in 1961, and Malawiand Zambia in 1964, andthese countries’ black-ruled governments would be expected to support Mozambique’sstruggle for independence as well.

February 2, 1920 – Estonian War of Independence: Soviet Russia and Estonia sign a peace agreement

On February 2, 1920, Soviet Russia and Estonia signed the Treaty of Tartu,a definitive peace agreement that ended the war.  Each side agreed to recognize the sovereigntyof the other; for the Estonians particularly, Russiaceased all claims “in perpetuity” of political and territorial sovereignty overEstonia.  The border between the two states was agreedto be the region to the east of the NarvaRiver and Setomaa in Russia, roughly corresponding to the battlelines at the end of the fighting, which allowed Estoniato gain a strategic buffer zone inside Russia.

Map showing Estonia and the other Baltic States, Latvia and Lithuania, as well as nearby countries.

The Russian Civil War was yet ongoing, and the RussianBolshevik government had agreed to end hostilities with Estonia (and Finland) in order to concentrategreater numbers of the Red Army in other more precarious theaters of the civilwar.  In the period following the war, Estonia was recognized by more countries and wasadmitted to the League of Nations in September1921.

(Taken from Estonian War of Independence – Wars of the 20th Century – Volume 4)

Background In the16th century, Estonia was annexed by the Swedish Empire following the LivonianWar which, in turn, in 1721 ceded the territory to the emerging Russian Empirefollowing the latter’s victory in the Northern Wars.  In both Swedish and Russian conquests, thelocal German authority in Estonia,now comprising the “Baltic German nobility”, was allowed to maintain local ruleon behalf of the greater colonial power. By the mid-19th century, as a result of the French Revolution(1789-1799), a wave of nationalism swept across Europe, a phenomenon thattouched into Estonia as well.  InEstonia, for so long, the German language had predominated in administrationand official functions, but for the first time, Estonian nationalists began torevere their own history, language, arts, culture, and traditions.  The Russian government’s attempt at “Russification”(cultural and linguistic assimilation into the Russian state) of Estonia wasspurned by the local people.  TheEstonian national identity also was accelerated by other factors: the abolitionof serfdom in Estoniain 1816, growth of industrialization and workers’ organizations, increasingprosperity among Estonians who had acquired lands, and the formation ofEstonian political movements. The Russian Empire opposed these nationalisticsentiments and enforced measures to suppress them.  The political and social unrest that gripped Russia in 1905further bolstered Estonian nationalism.

On March 30, 1917, one month after the first (February 1917)revolution, Russia’sProvisional Government granted political autonomy to Estoniaafter merging the Governorate (province) of Estonia and the ethnic Estoniannorthern portion of the Governorate of Livonia into the political andadministrative entity known as the “Autonomous Governorate of Estonia”.  An interim body, the Estonian ProvincialAssembly (Estonian: Maapäev), was elected with the task of administering thenew governorate.  Furthermore, theBolsheviks, on coming to power through the October Revolution, issued the“Declaration of the Rights of the Peoples of Russia” (on November 15, 1917),which granted all non-Russian peoples of the former Russian Empire the right tosecede from Russia and establish their own separate states. Eventually, theBolsheviks would renege on this edict and suppress secession from the Russianstate (now known as Russian Soviet Federative Socialist Republic,or RSFSR).

The Provisional Assembly of the Estonian Governorate,determined to implement a democratic form of government, declared itself as thesupreme authority in Estonia,which effectively was an act of secession. However, on November 5, 1917, local Estonian Bolsheviks led by JaanAnvelt seized power in a coup in Tallinn, Estonia’scapital, forcing the Estonian nationalists to disperse and operateclandestinely.  Meanwhile in SovietRussia, the Bolsheviks, whose revolution had succeeded partly on their promisesto a war-weary citizenry and military to disengage from World War I, declaredits pacifist intentions to the Central Powers. A ceasefire agreement was signed on December 15, 1917 and peace talksbegan a few days later in Brest-Litovsk (present-day Brest,in Belarus).

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

After Germany’scapitulation in November 1918, Russiarepudiated the Treaty of Brest-Litovsk and made plans to seize the Europeanterritories it previously had lost to the Central Powers.  An even far more reaching objective was forthe Bolshevik government to spread the communist revolution to Europe, first bylinking up with German communists who were at the forefront of the unrest thatcurrently was gripping Germany.  Russian military planners intended theoffensive to merely follow in the heels of the German withdrawal from Eastern Europe (i.e. to not directly engage the Germansin combat) and then seize as much territory before the various ethnicnationalist groups in these territories could establish and consolidate acivilian government.

Starting on November 28, 1918, in the action known as theSoviet westward offensive of 1918-1919, Soviet forces consisting of hundreds ofthousands of troops advanced in a multi-pronged offensive toward the Balticregion, Belarus, Poland, and Ukraine.

February 1, 1979 – Iranian Revolution: Ayatollah Khomeini returns to Iran

On February 1, 1979, using a chartered Air France commercial plane, Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini returned to Tehran in triumph, with several millions of his supporters welcoming him and bringing the whole country into frenzy.  Immediately, he announced his rejection of the Bakhtiar regime and on February 5, formed a “Provisional Islamic Revolutionary Government” led by his appointee, Prime Minister Mehdi Bazargan, a moderate leftist non-cleric.  Two rival governments now existed, each denouncing the other, but with Bakhtiar’s regime hopelessly isolated and desertions rife, receiving virtually no popular support, and propped up only by the military.

Rising tensions led to fighting on February 9, 1979, whenrebelling soldiers, wanting to defect to the side of the revolutionaries, wereconfronted by loyalist forces.  Thousandsof civilians joined the fighting on the side of the rebelling soldiers,attacking police stations and army depots and then arming themselves withseized weapons.  Two days later, February11, the Iranian Armed Forces declared itself neutral in the conflict, its unitsremaining at their bases.  With its onlyreal support lost, the Bakhtiar regime collapsed, with the Prime Minister goinginto hiding and then fleeing into exile abroad, as revolutionaries seizedcontrol of government buildings and public utilities and infrastructures.  The revolution had triumphed.

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

Iran in the Middle East.

Meanwhile in Iran,the Shah continued to carry out secular programs that alienated most of thepopulation.  In October 1971, tocommemorate 25 centuries since the founding of the Persian Empire, the Shahorganized a lavish program of activities in Persepolis, capital of the First PersianEmpire.  Then in March 1976, the Shahannounced that Iranhenceforth would adopt the “imperial” calendar (based on the reign of Persianking Cyrus the Great) to replace the Islamic calendar.  These acts, considered anti-Islamic by theclergy and many Iranians, would form part of the anti-royalist backlash in thecoming revolution.

Another paradox in a deeply conservative Muslim country wasthe government’s hosting the Shiraz-Persepolis Festival of Arts from 1967 to1977, which was meant to showcase the various forms of music, dance, drama,poetry, and film from western and eastern countries, including traditionalPersian and Iranian Shiite cultures.  Thefestival’s extravagance and especially some of the avant-garde westernperformances (which were already controversial by European standards) wereoutright sacrilegious in a country where Islam was the state religion.  It would be in 1977, one year before thestart of the revolution, that Ayatollah Khomeini spoke out against the artsfestival, even decrying the clerics in Tehran for not speaking out against theperformances.

Also by 1977, Iran’s decade-long period of strongeconomic growth had ended, and the country faced financial problems because ofan oil glut in the world market.  Iran’soil revenues dropped sharply, forcing a cut in oil production and a rise inunemployment.  Inflation and commoditiesshortages were met by the government imposing austerity measures, which in turnwere resisted by the general population.

Background of theIranian Revolution Under the Shah, Irandeveloped close 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 of successwith about 50% of peasants acquiring land, the program failed to win over therural population as the Shah intended; instead, the deeply religious peasantsremained loyal to the clergy.  Agrarianreform also antagonized the clergy, as most clerics belonged to wealthylandowning 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 voting rightsto women and allowing non-Muslims to hold government office, as well as becausethe 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).  Thegovernment responded two days later, on June 5, 1963, by arresting and jailingthe 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.

January 31, 1943 – Hitler promotes General Paulus to Field Marshal

With the battle for Stalingrad lost, on January 31, 1943, Hitler promoted General Friedrich Paulus to the rank of Field Marshal, hinting that the latter should take his own life rather than be captured.  Instead, on February 2, General Paulus surrendered to the Red Army, along with his trapped forces, which by now numbered only 110,000 troops.  Casualties on both sides in the battle of Stalingrad, one of the bloodiest in history, are staggering, with the Axis losing 850,000 troops, 500 tanks, 6,000 artillery pieces, and 900 planes; and the Soviets losing 1.1 million troops, 4,300 tanks, 15,000 artillery pieces, and 2,800 planes.  The German debacle at Stalingrad and withdrawal from the Caucasus effectively ended Case Blue, and like Operation Barbarossa in the previous year, resulted in another German failure.

“Case Blue” (German: Fall Blau), the German Army’s 1942 summer offensive in Russia. German Army Group South would advance to the Caucasus, which was Case Blue’s main objective.

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

Meanwhile to the north, German Army Group B, tasked withcapturing Stalingrad and securing the Volga, began its advance to the Don River on July 23, 1942.  The German advance was stalled by fierceresistance, as the delays of the previous weeks had allowed the Soviets tofortify their defenses.  By then, theGerman intent was clear to Stalin and the Soviet High Command, which then reorganizedRed Army forces in the Stalingrad sector andrushed reinforcements to the defense of the Don.  Not only was German Army Group B delayed bythe Soviets that had began to launch counter-attacks in the Axis’ northernflank (which were held by Italian and Hungarian armies), but also by over-extendedsupply lines and poor road conditions.

On August 10, 1942, German 6th Army had moved to the westbank of the Don, although strong Soviet resistance persisted in the north.  On August 22, German forces establishedbridgeheads across the Don, which was crossed the next day, with panzers andmobile spearheads advancing across the remaining 36 miles of flat plains to Stalingrad.  OnAugust 23, German 14th Panzer Division reached the VolgaRiver north of Stalingradand fought off Soviet counter-attacks, while the Luftwaffe began a bombingblitz of the city that would continue through to the height of the battle, whenmost of the buildings would be destroyed and the city turned to rubble.

On August 29, 1942, two Soviet armies (the 62nd and 64th)barely escaped being encircled by the German 4th Panzer Army and armored unitsof German 6th Army, both escaping to Stalingrad and ensuring that the battlefor the city would be long, bloody, and difficult.

On September 12, 1942, German forces entered Stalingrad, starting what would be a four-month longbattle.  From mid-September to earlyNovember, the Germans, confident of victory, launched three major attacks tooverwhelm all resistance, which gradually pushed back the Soviets east towardthe banks of the Volga.

By contrast, the Soviets suffered from low morale, but werecompelled to fight, since they had no option to retreat beyond the Volga because of Stalin’s “Not one step back!”order.  Stalin also (initially) refusedto allow civilians to be evacuated, stating that “soldiers fight better for analive city than for a dead one”.  Hewould later allow civilian evacuation after being advised by his top generals.

Soviet artillery from across the Volgaand cross-river attempts to bring in Red Army reinforcements were suppressed bythe Luftwaffe, which controlled the sky over the battlefield.  Even then, Soviet troops and suppliescontinued to reach Stalingrad, enough to keepup resistance.  The ruins of the cityturned into a great defensive asset, as Soviet troops cleverly used the rubbleand battered buildings as concealed strong points, traps, and killingzones.  To negate the Germans’ airsuperiority, Red Army units were ordered to keep the fighting lines close tothe Germans, to deter the Luftwaffe from attacking and inadvertently causingfriendly fire casualties to its own forces.

The battle for Stalingradturned into one of history’s fiercest, harshest, and bloodiest struggles forsurvival, the intense close-quarter combat being fought building-to-building andfloor-to-floor, and in cellars and basements, and even in the sewers.  Surprise encounters in such close distancessometimes turned into hand-to-hand combat using knives and bayonets.

By mid-November 1942, the Germans controlled 90% of thecity, and had pushed back the Soviets to a small pocket with four shallowbridgeheads some 200 yards from the Volga.  By then, most of German 6th Army was lockedin combat in the city, while its outer flanks had become dangerouslyvulnerable, as they were protected only by the weak armies of its Axispartners, the Romanians, Italians, and Hungarians.  Two weeks earlier, Hitler, believingStalingrad’s capture was assured, redeployed a large part of the Luftwaffe tothe fighting in North Africa.

Unbeknown to the Germans, in the previous months, the SovietHigh Command had been sending large numbers of Red Army formations to the northand southeast of Stalingrad.  While only intending to use these units insporadic counter-attacks in support of Stalingrad, by November 1942, Stalin andhis top generals had reorganized these forces for a major counter-offensivecodenamed Operation Uranus involving an enormous force of 1.1 million troops,1,000 tanks, 14,000 artillery pieces, and 1,300 planes, aimed at cutting offand encircling German 6th Army and units of 7th Panzer Army in Stalingrad.  German intelligence had detected the Sovietbuildup, but Hitler ignored the warning of his general staff, as by now he wasfirmly set on taking Stalingrad at all costs.

On November 19, 1942, the Soviet High Command launchedOperation Uranus, a double envelopment maneuver, with the Soviet SouthwesternFront attacking the Axis northern flank held by the Romanian 3rd Army.  The next day, the Soviet Stalingrad Frontthrust from the south of the Axis flank, with the brunt of the attack fallingon Romanian 4th Army. The two Romanian Armies, lacking sufficient anti-tankweapons and supported only with 100 obsolete tanks, were overwhelmed by sheernumbers, and on November 22, the two arms of the Soviet pincers linked up atKalach.  German 6th Army, elements of 4thPanzer Army, and remnants of the Romanian armies, comprising some250,000-300,000 troops, were trapped in a giant pocket in Stalingrad.

The German High Command asked Hitler to allow the trapped forcesto make a break out, which was refused. Also on many occasions, General Friedrich Paulus, commander of German6th Army, made similar appeals to Hitler, but was turned down.  Instead, on November 24, 1942, Hitler advisedGeneral Paulus to hold his position at Stalingraduntil reinforcements could be sent or a new German offensive could break theencirclement.  In the meantime, thetrapped forces would be supplied from the air. Hitler had been assured by Luftwaffe chief Hermann Goering that the 700tons/day required at Stalingrad could bedelivered with German transport planes. However, the Luftwaffe was unable to deliver the needed amount, despitethe addition of more transports for the operation, and the trapped forces in Stalingrad soon experienced dwindling supplies of food,medical supplies, and ammunition.  Withthe onset of winter and the temperature dropping to –30°C (–22°F), anincreasing number of Axis troops, yet without adequate winter clothing, sufferedfrom frostbite.  At this time also, theSoviet air force had began to achieve technological and combat parity with theLuftwaffe, challenging it for control of the skies and shooting down increasingnumbers of German planes.

Meanwhile, the Red Army strengthened the cordon aroundStalingrad, and launched a series of attacks that slowly pushed the trappedforces to an ever-shrinking perimeter in an area just west of Stalingrad.

In early December 1942, General Erich von Manstein,commander of the newly formed German Army Group Don, which was tasked withsecuring the gap between German Army Groups A and B, was ready to launch arelief operation to Stalingrad.  Began on December 12 under Operation WinterStorm, German Army Group Don succeeded in punching a hold in the Soviet ringand advanced rapidly, pushing aside surprised Red Army units, and came towithin 30 miles of Stalingrad on December 19. Through an officer that was sent to Stalingrad,General Manstein asked General Paulus to make a break out towards Army GroupDon; he also sent communication to Hitler to allow the trapped forces to breakout.  Hitler and General Paulus bothrefused.  General Paulus cited the lackof trucks and fuel and the poor state of his troops to attempt a break out, andthat his continued hold on Stalingrad would tie down large numbers of Sovietforces which would allow German Army Group A to retreat from the Caucasus.

On December 23, 1942, Manstein canceled the relief operationand withdrew his forces behind German lines, forced to do so by the threat ofbeing encircled by Soviet forces that meanwhile had launched Operation LittleSaturn.  Operation Little Saturn was amodification of the more ambitious Operation Saturn, which aimed to trap GermanArmy Group A in the Caucasus, but was rapidly readjusted to counter GeneralManstein’s surprise offensive to Stalingrad.  But Operation Little Saturn, the Sovietencirclement of Stalingrad, and the trapped Axis forces so unnerved Hitler thaton his orders, German Army Group A hastily withdrew from the Caucasusin late December 1942.  German 17th Armywould continue to hold onto the Taman Peninsula in the Black Sea coast, and planned to usethis as a jump-off point for a possible future second attempt to invade the Caucasus.

Meanwhile in Stalingrad, byearly January 1943, the situation for the trapped German forces grewdesperate.  On January 10, the Red Armylaunched a major attack to finally eliminate the Stalingradpocket after its demand to surrender was rejected by General Paulus.  On January 25, the Soviets captured the lastGerman airfield at Stalingrad, and despite theLuftwaffe now resorting to air-dropping supplies, the trapped forces ran low onfood and ammunition.

With the battle for Stalingradlost, on January 31, 1943, Hitler promoted General Paulus to the rank of FieldMarshal, hinting that the latter should take his own life rather than becaptured.  Instead, on February 2,General Paulus surrendered to the Red Army, along with his trapped forces,which by now numbered only 110,000 troops. Casualties on both sides in the battle of Stalingrad, one of thebloodiest in history, are staggering, with the Axis losing 850,000 troops, 500tanks, 6,000 artillery pieces, and 900 planes; and the Soviets losing 1.1million troops, 4,300 tanks, 15,000 artillery pieces, and 2,800 planes.  The German debacle at Stalingrad andwithdrawal from the Caucasus effectively endedCase Blue, and like Operation Barbarossa in the previous year, resulted inanother German failure.

January 30, 1968 – Vietnam War: The Viet Cong and North Vietnamese launch preliminary attacks of the Tet offensive

Following some attacks one day earlier (January 30), onJanuary 31, 1968 (which was the Vietnamese New Year or Tet, when a truce wastraditionally observed), some 80,000 Viet Cong fighters, supported by someNorth Vietnamese Army units, launched coordinated attacks in Saigon, in 36 ofthe 44 provincial capitals, and in over 100 other towns across SouthVietnam.  In Saigon,many public and military infrastructures were hit, including the governmentradio station where the Viet Cong/NLF tried but failed to broadcast apre-recorded message from Ho Chi Minh calling on the civilian population torise up in rebellion (electric power to the radio station was cut immediatelyafter the attack).  A Viet Cong attemptto seize the U.S. Embassy in Saigon alsofailed.

Map showing North and South Vietnam in Southeast Asia.

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

Tet Offensive Inearly 1967, North Vietnambegan preparing for a massive offensive into South Vietnam.  This operation, which later came to be knownas the Tet Offensive, would have far-reaching consequences on the outcome ofthe war.  The North Vietnamese plan tolaunch the Tet Offensive came about when political hardliners in Hanoi succeeded insidelining the moderates in government. As a result of the hardliners dictatinggovernment policies, in July 1967, hundreds of moderates, including governmentofficials and military officers, were purged from the Hanoi government and the Vietnamese CommunistParty.

By fall of 1967, North Vietnamese military planners had setthe date to launch the Tet Offensive on January 31, 1968.  In the invasion plan, the Viet Cong was tocarry out the offensive, with North Vietnam only providing weapons and othermaterial support.  The Tet Offensive,which was known in North Vietnamas “General Offensive, General Uprising”, called for the Viet Cong to launchsimultaneous attacks on many targets across South Vietnam, which would beaccompanied with calls to the civilian population to launch a generaluprising.  North Vietnam believed that acivilian uprising in the south would succeed because of President Thieu’sunpopularity, as evidenced by the constant civil unrest and widespreadcriticism of government policies.  Inthis scenario, once President Thieu was overthrown, an NLF-led communistgovernment would succeed in power, and pressure the United States to end its involvement in South Vietnam.  Faced with the threat of internationalcondemnation, the United Stateswould be forced to acquiesce, and withdraw its forces from Vietnam.

As part of its general strategy for the Tet Offensive, North Vietnamincreased its military activity along the border region.  In the last months of 1967, the NorthVietnamese military launched attacks across the border, including in Song Be,Loc Ninh, and Dak To in order to lure U.S. forces away from the mainurban areas.  These diversionary attackssucceeded, as large numbers of U.S.troops were moved to the border areas.

In a series of clashes known as the “Border Battles”,American and South Vietnamese forces easily threw back these North Vietnameseattacks, inflicting heavy North Vietnamese casualties.  However, U.S.military planners were baffled at North Vietnam’s intentions, asthese attacks appeared to be a waste of soldiers and resources in the face ofoverwhelming American firepower.

But the North Vietnamese had succeeded in drawing away thebulk of U.S.forces from the populated centers.  Bythe start of the Tet Offensive, half of all U.S. combat troops were in I Corpsto confront what the Americans believed was an imminent major North Vietnameseinvasion into the northern provinces.  U.S. militaryintelligence had detected the build ups of Viet Cong forces in the south andthe North Vietnamese in the north.  Butthe U.S.high command, including General Westmoreland, did not believe that the VietCong had the capacity to mount a large offensive like that which actuallyoccurred in the Tet Offensive.

Following some attacks one day earlier (January 30), onJanuary 31, 1968 (which was the Vietnamese New Year or Tet, when a truce wastraditionally observed), some 80,000 Viet Cong fighters, supported by someNorth Vietnamese Army units, launched coordinated attacks in Saigon, in 36 ofthe 44 provincial capitals, and in over 100 other towns across SouthVietnam.  In Saigon,many public and military infrastructures were hit, including the governmentradio station where the Viet Cong/NLF tried but failed to broadcast apre-recorded message from Ho Chi Minh calling on the civilian population torise up in rebellion (electric power to the radio station was cut immediatelyafter the attack).  A Viet Cong attemptto seize the U.S. Embassy in Saigon alsofailed.

Taken by surprise, South Vietnamese and American forcesquickly assembled a defense, and then soon counterattacked.  Crucially, U.S.forces that had been sent to the Cambodian border returned to Saigonjust before the start of the Tet Offensive.

Viet Cong units occupied large sections of Saigon, but afterbitter street-by-street, house-to-house fighting, South Vietnamese and U.S. forcessoon gained the upper hand.  SouthVietnamese forces also mounted successful defenses in other parts of thecountry.  In early February 1968, theViet Cong leadership ordered a general retreat. The rebels, now suffering heavy human and material losses, withdrew fromthe cities and towns.

At Hue,the ancestral capital, the North Vietnamese and Viet Cong attackers, who hadseized large sections of the city, were ordered to stay and defend theirpositions.  A 28-day battle ensued, with U.S. forces,supported by naval and ground artillery and air support, advancing slowly andengaging the enemy in intense house-to-house battles.  By late February 1968 when the last NorthVietnamese/Viet Cong units had been driven out of Hue, some 80% of the city hadbeen destroyed, 5,000 civilians killed, and over 100,000 people lefthomeless.  Combat fatalities at theBattle of Hue were 700 American/South Vietnamese and 8,000 NorthVietnamese/Viet Cong soldiers.

While the Tet Offensive was ongoing, General Westmorelandcontinued to believe that the Tet Offensive was a diversion for a major NorthVietnamese attack in the north, particularly on the Khe Sanh American combatbase, in preparation for a full invasion of South Vietnam’s northern provinces. Thus, he sent back only few combat troops already committed to defendthe towns and cities.  After the war,North Vietnamese officials have since insisted that the Tet Offensive was theirmain objective, and that their attack on Khe Sanh was merely a diversion todraw away U.S.forces from the Tet Offensive.  Somehistorians also postulate that North Vietnam planned no diversion at all, butthat its purpose was to launch both the Khe Sanh and Tet offensives.

January 29, 1991 – The Battle of Khafji in the Gulf War takes place

The first major ground battle of the war took place onJanuary 29, 1991 (some four weeks before coalition forces launched the groundcampaign) when Iraqi forces in southern Kuwait crossed the border into SaudiArabia and seized the town of Khafji.  Acounter-attack by coalition forces, which included U.S., Saudi Arabian, and Qatariinfantry, armor, artillery, and aircraft, recaptured the town two days later,February 1.  Casualties included 43coalition and at least 60 Iraqi fatalities, while another 400 Iraqi soldierswere taken prisoner.

Middle East showing location of Iraq, Kuwait, and Saudi Arabia.

Weeks before the ground campaign began, coalition forcesundertook mock landings along the Kuwaiti coast in order to lure the Iraqimilitary into believing that a major Allied amphibious operation would becarried out for the recapture of Kuwait.  In fact, coalition forces were massed alongthe Kuwaiti-Saudi Arabian border for a full-scale land offensive.  The Iraqi defense of Kuwait consisted of 18 infantry divisions andtwo armored corps from Iraq’sregular army, deployed in and around KuwaitCity and more significantly insouthern Kuwait.  Behind these formations were the eightdivisions of Iraq’selite Republican Guard, arrayed along a 50-mile front on the Iraqi-Kuwaitborder.  Because of the threat of theIraqi Army using chemical and biological weapons, coalition forces were givenprotective gear and equipment; prior to the offensive, Allied military plannersfeared that troop casualties could as high as 30%.

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

Background OnAugust 2, 1990, Iraqi forces invaded Kuwait (previous article),overthrew the ruling monarchy and seizing control of the oil-rich country.  A “Provisional Government of Free Kuwait” wasestablished, and two days later, August 4, the Iraqi government, led by SaddamHussein, declared Kuwaita republic.  On August 8, Saddam changedhis mind and annexed Kuwaitas a “governorate”, declaring it Iraq’s 19th province.

Jaber III, Kuwait’sdeposed emir who had fled to neighboring Saudi Arabia in the midst of theinvasion, appealed to the international community.  On August 3, 1990, the United NationsSecurity Council (UNSC) issued Resolution 660, the first of many resolutionsagainst Iraq, whichcondemned the invasion and demanded that Saddam withdraw his forces from Kuwait.  Three days later, August 6, the UNSC releasedResolution 661 that imposed economic sanctions against Iraq, which wascarried out through a naval blockade authorized under UNSC Resolution 665.  Continued Iraqi defiance subsequently wouldcompel the UNSC to issue Resolution 678 on November 29, 1990 that set thedeadline for Iraq to withdraw from Kuwait on or before January 15, 1991 as wellas authorized UN member states to enforce the withdrawal if necessary, eventhrough the use of force.  The ArabLeague, the main regional organization, also condemned the invasion, although Jordan, Sudan,Yemen, and the PalestineLiberation Organization (PLO) continued to support Iraq.

Iraq’sannexation of Kuwait upsetthe political, military, and economic dynamics in the Persian Gulf region, andby possessing the world’s fourth largest armed forces, Iraq now posed a direct threat to Saudi Arabia and other Gulf states. The United Statesannounced that intelligence information detected a build-up of Iraqi forces in Kuwait’s southern border with Saudi Arabia.  Saddam, however, declared that Iraq had no intention of invading Saudi Arabia, aposition he would maintain in response to allegations of his territorialambitions.

Meeting with U.S. Secretary of Defense Dick Cheney whoarrived in Saudi Arabiashortly after Iraq’sinvasion of Kuwait, SaudiKing Fahd requested U.S.military protection.  U.S. PresidentGeorge H.W. Bush accepted the invitation, as doing so would not only defend animportant regional ally, but prevent Saddam from gaining control of the oilfields of Saudi Arabia,the world’s largest petroleum producer. With its conquest of Kuwait,Iraq now held 20% of theworld’s oil supply, but annexing Saudi Arabia would allow Saddam tocontrol 50% of the global oil reserves. By September 18, 1990, the U.S.government announced that the Iraqi Army was massed in southern Kuwait,containing a force of 360,000 troops and 2,800 tanks.

U.S.military deployment to Saudi Arabia,codenamed Operation Desert Shield, was swift; on August 8, just six days after Iraq’s invasion of Kuwait,American air and naval forces, led by two aircraft carriers and twobattleships, had arrived in the Persian Gulf.  Over the next few months, Iraq offered theUnited States a number of proposals to resolve the crisis, including that Iraqiforces would be withdrawn from Kuwait on the condition that Israel alsowithdrew its troops from occupied regions in Palestine (West Bank, Gaza Strip),Syria (Golan Heights, and southern Lebanon. The United Statesrefused to negotiate, however, stating that Iraq must withdraw its troops asper the UNSC resolutions before any talk of resolving other Middle Easternissues would be discussed.  On January 9,1991, as the UN-imposed deadline of January 15, 1991 approached, U.S. Secretaryof State James Baker and Iraq’sForeign Minister Tariq Aziz held last-minute talks in GenevaSwitzerland(called the Geneva Peace Conference). But the two sides refused to tone down their hard-line positions,leading to the breakdown of talks and the imminent outbreak of war.

Because Mecca and Medina, Islam’s holiest sites, were located in Saudi Arabia, King Fahd received strong localand international criticism from other Muslim states for allowing U.S. troopsinto his country.  At the urging of KingFahd, the United States organized a multinational coalition consisting of armedand civilian contingents from 34 countries which, apart from Saudi Arabia andKuwait’s (exiled forces), also included other Arab and Muslim countries (Egypt,Syria, United Arab Emirates, Qatar, Bahrain, Oman, Turkey, Morocco,Afghanistan, Pakistan, and Bangladesh).  Aforce of about 960,000 troops was assembled, with U.S.soldiers accounting for 700,000 or about 70% of the total; Britain and France also sent sizablecontingents, some 53,000 and 18,000 respectively, as well as large amounts ofmilitary equipment and supplies.

In talks with Saudi officials, the United States stated that the Saudi governmentmust pay for the greater portion of the cost for the coalition force, as thelatter was tasked specifically to protect Saudi Arabia.  In the coming war, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, andother Gulf states contributed about $36 billion of the $61 billion coalitiontotal war cost; as well, Germany and Japan contributed a combined $16 billion,although these two countries, prohibited by their constitutions from sendingarmies abroad, were not a combat part of the coalition force.

President Bush overcame the last major obstacle toimplementing UNSC Resolution 678 – the U.S. Congress.  The U.S. Senate and House of Representativeswere held by a majority from the opposition Democratic Party, which was opposedto the Bush administration’s war option and instead believed that the UNSC’seconomic sanctions against Iraq, yet barely two months in force, must be giventime to work.  On January 12, 1991, acongressional joint resolution that authorized war, as per President Bush’srequest, was passed by the House of Representatives by a vote of 250-183 andSenate by a vote of 52-47.

One major factor for U.S. Congress’ approval for war werenews reports of widespread atrocities and human rights violations beingcommitted by Iraq’soccupation forces against Kuwaiti civilians, particularly against members ofthe clandestine Kuwaiti resistance movement that had arisen as a result of theoccupation.  Some of the moreoutrage-provoking accounts, including allegations that Iraqi soldiers pulledhundreds of new-born infants from incubators and then left to die on thehospital floors, have since been determined to be untrue.

Iraq’s programs for developing nuclear, chemical, andbiological weapons were also cause for grave concern to Western countries,particularly since during the Iran-Iraq War (that ended just three yearsearlier, in August 1988), Saddam did not hesitate to use chemical weapons,dropping bombs and firing artillery containing projectiles laced with nerveagents, cyanide, and sarin against Iranian military and civilian targets, andeven against his own people, i.e. Iraq Kurds who had risen up in rebellion andsided with Iran in the war.

January 28, 1933 – The name “Pakstan” is coined, which soon is changed to “Pakistan” to embody the name of a proposed new Muslim state

On January 28, 1933, Indian Muslim nationalist Choudhry Rahmat Ali wrote a pamphlet titled “Now or Never; Are We to Live or Perish Forever?” (later known as the “Pakistan Declaration”), where he proposed “Pakstan” (without the “i”) as the name of a new Indian Muslim nation. Part of the pamphlet’s opening line described it thus, “…our thirty million Muslim brethren who live in PAKSTAN—by which we mean the five Northern units of India, Viz: Punjab, North-West Frontier Province (Afghan Province), Kashmir, Sind and Baluchistan.”

“Pakstan” was soon changed to “Pakistan” to ease pronunciation; Indian Muslim nationalists welcomed the name, which quickly grew in popularity to embody the name of a new independent Muslim state.

Partition of the Indian subcontinent.

(Taken from Partition of India – Wars of the 20th Century – Volume 3)

At the end of World War II, Britainwas reeling in heavy debt and was facing economic ruin.  The British government was hard pressed tocontinue financing the many British overseas colonial administrations in itsvast territories around the world.  Britaintherefore adopted a foreign policy of decolonization, that is, the Britishwould end colonial rule and grant independence to the colonies.  Britain’s decision to decolonizealso was influenced by the rise of nationalism among colonized peoples, aphenomenon that occurred in British, as well as other European colonies aroundthe world.

In the Indian subcontinent (Map 12), which was Britain’sprized possession since the 1800s, a strong nationalist sentiment had existedfor many decades and had led to the emergence of many political organizationsthat demanded varying levels of autonomy and self-rule.  Other Indian nationalist movements alsocalled for the British to leave immediately. Nationalist aspirations were concentrated in areas with direct Britishrule, as there also existed across the Indian subcontinent hundreds ofsemi-autonomous regions which the British called “Princely States”, whoserulers held local authority with treaties or alliances made with the Britishgovernment.  The Princely States,however, had relinquished their foreign policy initiatives to the British inexchange for British military protection against foreign attacks.  Thus, the British de facto ruled over thePrincely States.

For so long, the Indian nationalist movement perceived theBritish presence as impinging on the Indians’ right to sovereignty.  Ultimately, however, India’sreligious demographics – the divide between the majority Hindu Indians and theminority Muslim Indian sectors of the population – would be the major obstacleto independence.  Hindus constituted 253million people, or 72% of the population, while Muslims, at 92 million, made up26% of the population.  Sikhs, who wereconcentrated in Punjab Province, totaled about 2million, or 6% of the population.

In the first few decades of the twentieth century, Hindusand Muslims were united in their common opposition to British rule.  By the mid-1930s, the British had allowednative participation in politics and government, hinting at India’slikelihood of gaining independence. Muslim Indians now became concerned, since an independent India meantthat Hindus, because of their sheer number, would have a perennial held onpower.  To the Muslims, this would mean apermanent Hindu-dominated Indiawhere Muslim interests possibly would not be met.

Muslims, therefore, proposed to carve out a separate Muslimstate, which would be called “Pakistan”and would consist of regions that contained a majority Muslim population.  However, such a proposal, which emerged inthe 1930s, was considered too radical even for most Muslims, since the idea ofa divided Indiawas inconceivable.  Most politicians fromthe two sides were intent on trying to work out a power-sharing arrangement atall levels of government, much like the local autonomous governments, which by nowhad come into existence and were run jointly by Muslims and Hindus.

By 1940, however, Muslim Indians were advocating the“Two-Nation Principle”, that is, since Hindus and Muslims belonged to differentreligions, they also differed in nationality, even if they shared a commonethnicity, culture, and language.  Eventhen, most Muslim leaders only used the Two-Nation Principle as a means to gaingreater political concessions in their support for an undivided India.  Hindus were intractably opposed to partitioningIndia.

In May 1946, the British central government in London sent to Indiaa delegation called the “Cabinet Mission” with the task of finalizing theprocess of granting India’sindependence and to transfer all governmental functions from the colonialadministration to a new Indian government consisting of Hindus andMuslims.  Britainenvisioned an undivided India,and the Cabinet Mission therefore was instructed to work out a power-sharinggovernment for Muslims and Hindus.

In June 1946, the Cabinet Mission presented a plan for anIndian federated state made up of separate, autonomous Hindu-majority andMuslim-majority provinces under a decentralized national government.  Muslim political leaders accepted the plan,reasoning that the decentralized scheme met their demands for self-rule.  However, Hindu leaders rejected the plan,arguing that it essentially partitioned India into many smaller states.

Hindu leaders then proposed to amend the plan into one thatincluded a strong centralized government. Muslim leaders were infuriated and walked out of the proceedings, andsubsequently withdrew their support for the Cabinet Mission.  They then called on Muslims to hold civilactions.  Across India, Muslimscarried out mass protests and demonstrations, which generally ended withoutincident.  However, in Calcutta on August 16, 1946, an initiallypeaceful assembly turned violent when armed bands of Muslims and Hindus went ona rampage, and for three days, carried out widespread violence anddestruction.  When British troops finallyarrived and restored order, over 5,000 persons had been killed, 10,000 wounded,and tens of thousands left homeless.  Themajority of the victims were Muslims.

In October 1946, Muslim farmers in Noakhali and Tripuraattacked their Hindu landowners, and killed 5,000 persons and forced manythousands of civilians to flee from the region. In reprisal, in Bihar, Bengal Province, Hindu armedbands attacked Muslim villages and killed thousands of civilians.  From late 1946 to early 1947, violence tookplace in the Punjab and the North West Frontier Province, where Muslim armed groupsroamed the countryside and targeted Sikhs and Hindus with murders, abductions,and rapes.  Some Sikhs killed their ownwives and daughters to prevent them from falling victim to the attacks.  Sikh armed groups also carried outretaliatory attacks against Muslim settlements.

For Hindu and Muslim leaders, the widespread violence endedall hope for an undivided India.  Even the most optimistic Hindus became resignedto partition.  In February 1947, theBritish announced that they would leave India no later than June 1948.  As a result of the widespread violence,Archibald Wavell, the British Governor-General of India, was dismissed.  Lord Louis Mountbatten succeeded as the newGovernor-General and was given brief instructions: quickly grant India itsindependence, and then leave.  Upon hisarrival, Lord Mountbatten saw that partition was the only solution for India, as theHindu-Muslim coalition government was breaking apart and the sectarian violencewas threatening to erupt into a civil war. Negotiations for partition soon began.

On June 3, 1947, Hindu and Muslim leaders reached anagreement in principle to carry out a partition of the subcontinent.  Lord Mountbatten then announced that onAugust 15, 1947, a date just over three months away, the colonial governmentwould cease to function and that, by that time, all governmental functionsalready would have been fully turned over to Hindus and Muslims under the twonew countries of India and Pakistan,respectively.  Lord Mountbatten reasonedthat moving back the date of the British departure from the earlier announcedJune 1948 to August 1947 was to prove that Britainwas sincere in granting Indiaits independence and to dismiss accusations that the British were stalling theprocess.

Lord Mountbatten also settled the fates of the PrincelyStates, which accounted for about one-third of the area of the Indiansubcontinent.  In a plenary meeting withthe heads of the Princely States in July 1947, the Governor-General offeredthem two options: to be incorporated politically and geographically into eitherIndia or Pakistan, or torevert to their pre-colonial status as independent political entities.  Lord Mountbatten, however, cautioned thePrincely States against taking the second option, saying that they risked beingoverwhelmed by their two new giant neighbors, Indiaand Pakistan.

January 27, 1944 – World War II: The Siege of Leningrad ends

In September 1943, the Soviet High Command finalized plansfor a major offensive to finally eliminate the threat to Leningrad, and in the following months,massive troop buildup was made in the region under the cover of “maskirovka”(military deception) operations.  OnJanuary 14, 1944, two Soviet Fronts (Volkhov and Leningrad), aided by elementsof 2nd Baltic Front, the combined force comprising 1.2 million troops, 4,600artillery pieces, 550 tanks, and 650 planes, attacked positions of German ArmyGroup North along the Leningrad sector. German Army Group North, comprising 700,000 troops, 2,400 artillerypieces, 150 tanks, and 140 planes, was by now a shadow of its once formidableself in 1941, as its armored and other elite units had been moved to othersectors and because its frontlines were lengthened in support of German Army Group Center.  The Soviets broke through the defenses, andwithin two weeks, had forced German Army Group North to retreat 60 miles (100km) to the Luga River. On January 27, 1944, Stalin announced that the siege of Leningrad was over, and military celebrationswere held in the city.  By early February1944, German Army Group North had withdrawn to Narva at the Estonian-Russianborder, behind the Panther Line (the northern portion of the Panther-WotanLine), which consisted of recently constructed fortifications that reliedheavily on the natural defensive features of the region, including the Narvaand Velikaya Rivers, Lake Peipus, and the numerous dense forests and swamps.

Key sites in the Battle of Russia during World War II; Leningrad is located in northern Russia.

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

By late August 1941, German forces had captured the last RedArmy strongholds in the Baltic States in northern Estonia,forcing a Soviet naval evacuation of all Russian troops in Tallinn on August 27-31.  By then also, German Army Group North’s 4thPanzer Group, now reinforced with 3rd Panzer Group, had advanced to within 30miles of Leningrad.  The Finnish Army had retaken lost territories(from the Winter War) in Eastern Karelia and the Karelian Isthmus, and waspositioned 20 miles north of Leningrad.  For Hitler, Leningrad not only served to protect thenorthern flank of Operation Barbarossa, it was also the main base of the SovietBaltic Fleet and a major center for industries and weapons production.  Leningrad’scapture also would be devastating to Soviet morale, as it was Russia’s formercapital and the birthplace of the Bolshevik Revolution.

Ahead of the German advance, large numbers of Soviet troopswere transferred to Leningrad.  On orders of the city’s administration,hundreds of thousands of residents built defensive fortifications around thecity, while 160,000 civilians joined the Red Army ranks.  On September 8, 1941, the Germans cut thelast land route to Leningrad, and soon also thecity’s railway line to Moscow and Murmansk, thus isolatingthe city.  On September 9, German ArmyGroup North launched its final attack on Leningrad,which initially made good progress but by September 19, met increasingly fierceresistance and mounting casualties in the last six miles to the city.  On September 22, on orders of a by-nowimpatient Hitler, the Germans stopped their advance and began a siege of thecity, supported by air and artillery bombardment, to starve the population andinflict maximum destruction of infrastructures. This change of strategy from storming the city to conducting a siege wasbrought about by Hitler’s refusal to take on the responsibility of feeding thecity’s large population.  The siege wasexpected to last a few weeks, at most until January 1942, when German forceswould enter Leningrad, deport the survivors to Siberia, and raze the city to the ground.

Some 1.7 million civilians were evacuated from Leningrad ahead of theGerman advance and during the siege, which soon reduced the pre-war populationof 3.3 million by nearly 50%.  Theremaining population endured extreme hardships and a high death toll, withextremely limited food supplies, and disrupted water, heat, and other basicservices.  At its peak in early 1942,some 100,000 people perished each month, mostly from starvation.

In November 1941, Soviet forces in Leningradopened an outlet through Lake Ladoga to unoccupiedSoviet territory in the east, known as the “Road of Life”, through which theentry of food supplies and evacuation of civilians were made.  This route was a waterway for vessels duringthe warmer months and a highway for land vehicles during the colder seasons(when the lake surface froze to ice), but was extremely hazardous because ofconstant German air attacks, thus its other moniker, the “Road of Death”.

For the rest of World War II, the Germans did not launch anymajor offensives to capture Leningrad,as Hitler became focused on other sectors, and Army Group North’s ongoing siegebecoming a lower priority.  The siege wasone of the longest and bloodiest in history .

January 26, 1986 – Ugandan Bush War: The Ugandan government collapses as rebel forces capture Kampala; President Okello flees into exile in Kenya

On January 22, 1986, rebel forces of the National ResistanceArmy (NRA), led by Yoweri Museveni, laid siege to Kampala, capturing theUgandan capital three days later.  Thegovernment of Tito Okello collapsed, with its leaders fleeing into exileabroad.  Thousands of Kampala residents took to the streets andwarmly received Museveni and the NRA fighters. On January 26, 1986, Museveni took over power and declared himselfpresident of Uganda.  The Ugandan Bush War was over; between300,000 and 500,000 persons had lost their lives.

Africa showing location of Uganda.

(Taken from Ugandan Bush War – Wars of the 20th Century – Volume 3)

Background OnApril 11, 1979, General Idi Amin was removed from power when the TanzanianArmy, supported by Ugandan rebels, invaded and took over Uganda (previous article).  Uganda then entered a transitionalperiod aimed at a return to democracy, a process that generated great politicalinstability.  A succession of leadersheld power only briefly because of tensions between the civilian government andthe newly reorganized Ugandan military leadership.  Furthermore, ethnic-based political parties wrangledwith each other, hoping to gain and play a bigger role in the futuregovernment.

In general elections held in December 1980, former PresidentMilton Obote, who had been the country’s head of state before being deposed ina coup by General Amin in 1971, returned to power by winning the presidentialrace.  It was hoped that the electionswould advance the country’s transition to democracy.  Instead, they served as the trigger for thecivil war that followed.  Defeatedpolitical groups accused President Obote of cheating to win the elections.  Tensions rose within the already chargedpolitical atmosphere.  Many armed groupsthat already existed during the war now rose up in rebellion against thegovernment.

War The UgandanCivil War is historically cited as having started on February 6, 1981, when oneof the armed groups attacked a Ugandan military facility. The various rebelmilitias were tribe-based, operated independently of each other, and generallycarried out their activities only within their local and regionalstrongholds.  One such rebel militiaconsisted of former Ugandan Army soldiers still loyal to General Amin, andfought out of the West Nile District, which was General Amin’s homeland.  The various rebel militias had limitedcapability to confront government forces and therefore employed hit-and-runtactics, such as ambushing army patrols, raiding armories and seizing weapons,and carrying out sabotage operations against government installations.

The rebel group that ultimately prevailed in the war was theNational Resistance Army (NRA), led by Yoweri Museveni, Uganda’sformer Defense Minister.  As a universitystudent, Museveni had received training in guerilla warfare, which he wouldlater put to use in the war.

In response, the Ugandan Army launched an extensivecounter-insurgency campaign in the countryside. The soldiers particularly targeted the rural population, which theybelieved was supporting the rebels.  Themany atrocities committed by soldiers included summary executions, tortures,rapes, lootings, and destruction of homes and properties.  The West Nile District was hard hit becauseof its fierce opposition to President Obote. Furthermore, soldiers from other ethnic groups were repressed during thereign of General Amin.  Thus, after thedictator’s overthrow, these ethnic groups, particularly the Acholi and Langowhich formed the majority in the Ugandan Army, carried out revenge by targetingcivilians in the West Nile District.

The insurgency spread throughout most of Uganda, but the greatest concentration of rebelactivity took place in the Luwero Triangle (Map 23), a rural region locatedjust north of Kampala,the country’s capital.  Consequently, thegovernment’s counter-insurgency measures were most intense in the Luwero Triangle,which also received widespread international media attention.  To cut off the insurgency’s source ofsupport, government forces depopulated villages and settlements in the LuweroTriangle and relocated the residents into guarded resettlement camps.

The military campaigns had a great impact on thecountryside, particularly in terms of human casualties.  In the Luwero Triangle, tens of thousands ofcivilians were killed, while hundreds of thousands fled from the region.  In the West Nile District, 30,000 personslost their lives, while 500,000 fled to neighboring Sudanand Zaire.  As a result of the increasing violence, Britain and the United States ended their economic support to Uganda, which only worsened thealready dire conditions in that African country.

In December 1983, General David Oyite-Ojok, the UgandanArmed Forces chief of staff, died in a helicopter crash.  General Oyite-Ojok was an Acholi.  President Obote appointed a fellow Lango asthe new chief of staff.  General BazilioOlara-Okello, an Acholi, was infuriated as he was the next in line to succeedGeneral Oyite-Ojok.  Tensions rosebetween Acholis and Langos in the military, which led to skirmishes.  In July 1985, General Olara-Okello and otherofficers, declaring their dissatisfaction with the government’s conduct of thewar, overthrew President Obote in a coup.

The coup leaders took over power and formed a “MilitaryCouncil” to run the country.  Peace talkswere held with the various rebel groups, which soon led to an agreement thatestablished a power-sharing government that included rebel leaders who haddisarmed and disbanded their militias. However, Ugandacontinued to experience unrest and widespread violence, and the enmity betweenAcholi and Lango soldiers undermined the military’s ability to operateeffectively.  Most crucially, thegovernment’s peace agreement with Museveni and the NRA, although signed by thetwo sides, was not implemented, and hostility and mistrust remained.