Whats really cold blooded is the fact that some incompetent man and a poor planner took your people took war without making arrangememt  safe and secured food supply.

You dont go took to war and end up depending on your enemy to feed your own army, that was just reta.rded.

It was also cold blooded that the man responsible for your feeding and safety was denying you food by taking bribe and extorting money from food aid groups.

Awolowo was not responsible for the people of biafra, ojuku was. That you still have to deal with.

DeeMain:

"So I decided to stop sending the food there. In the process the civilians would suffer, but the soldiers will suffer most."

Did u just read what I just read?? There is something cold-blooded, blood-chilling and mind-bending about this confession from Awo. For the sake of argument, let us assume that Nigeria did indeedd send food to the east.

Read this in context:

Few Igbo soldiers carried out a coup that was thwarted by Ojukwu and Ironsi (Igbo men too) amongst others, and a pogrom and mass genocide was unleashed on the entire Igbo nation. Extermination was the mantra.

Food sent to Biafra from Nigeria were poisoned (easy to believe if you saw the extent of the pogrom).

Farms,  food stores, markets, goats, men, women , children, hamlets, huts were bombed by the Nigerian forces, giving rise to Kwashiokor and mass death.

Blockade of arms and food access to the sea and  through the air

Hungry soldiers ambush ''alleged'' food supply so they can keep on defending their land - remember Murtala, Adekunle and others had boasted that when they march to the Igbo heartland , every living thing that moves will be leveled.

Awolowo, the master tactician, decides that the solution is to kill the hungry soldiers by killing the children and women through a food blockade. In his words, '' the civilians will suffer but the soldiers will suffer most.''

Death count - 2 million biafrans!

Blood Chiliing!!!!!!!!!!!!

like i said above emotions rather than rationality is at play in most conflicts of this nature.
once an opinion/attitude has been formed we tend to minimize any contrary evidence no matter how glaring and maximize all evidence no matter how small that resonates with our attitudes as such it is nearly impossible to be "objective".
on the Nigerian side Ojukwu is considered a villain and on the other side Awolowo is a villain and this will always be, at least in fora like this.

One thing is important to remember thousands of igbos were killed in the North before Biafra was declared and  is the prima facie reason cited for its declaration. Awolowo was in prison. Was any one individual saddled with the historical burden of blame/responsibility for this by the victims.?

i have my own theories but perhaps some Igbos should ask themselves why they have not or cannot find,in addition to Awolowo, another individual symbol or target for animus among the several Hausa/Fulani actors of the troubles either within  the Nigeria Army(there were many) or outwith. This occurence is not random or without reason

^^^
this thing tire me ooo. the guy was finance minister but if u listen to Igbos, u would think he was the Head of State. everything na Awo Awo Awo.

aribisala0:

like i said above emotions rather than rationality is at play in most conflicts of this nature.
once an opinion/attitude has been formed we tend to minimize any contrary evidence no matter how glaring and maximize all evidence no matter how small that resonates with our attitudes as such it is nearly impossible to be "objective".
on the Nigerian side Ojukwu is considered a villain and on the other side Awolowo is a villain and this will always be, at least in fora like this.

One thing is important to remember thousands of igbos were killed in the North before Biafra was declared and is the prima facie reason cited for its declaration. Awolowo was in prison. Was any one individual saddled with the historical burden of blame/responsibility for this by the victims.?

i have my own theories but perhaps some Igbos should ask themselves why they have not or cannot find,in addition to Awolowo, another individual symbol or target for animus among the several Hausa/Fulani actors of the troubles either within the Nigeria Army(there were many) or outwith. This occurence is not random or without reason

You are the only reasonable Yoruba poster here so far. Awo claimed that if the East will go, the west will go as well. If he had kept his promise or if the west had remained neutral, the north alone could not have defeated Biafra. It was a great betrayal on Awo's part.

HAS IT OCCURRED TO ANYONE THAT THE REAL WAR AND ITS JUSTIFICATION IS BETWEEN iGBO/YORUBA, EVEN AL -HAREM OF NO FIXED ADDRESS HAS DISAPPEARED. THIS IS A FOOD FOR THOUGHT FOR THE WARRING TRIBES.

HOWEVER, THE EVENTS THAT LED TO PAST TRAGIC WAR SCENES ARE STILL WITH US, YET MANY OF US CONTINUE TO POINT ACCUSING FINGERS ELSEWHERE, COULD BE SHARE JEALOUSY

Andre Uweh:

You are the only reasonable Yoruba poster here so far. Awo claimed that if the East will go, the west will go as well. If he had kept his promise or if the west had remained neutral, the north alone could not have defeated Biafra. It was a great betrayal on Awo's part.

This was the speech given by Awo to the Western house of assembly, that has been selectively quoted times without number by Biafran proponents like you.

Please read it once again and bear in mind the speech was given to the Western house of Assembly and not an agreement between Awo and Ojukwu, or an Agreement between Yorubas and Igbo.



Chief Awolowo's Speech to Western leaders of thought
IN IBADAN , MAY 1 1967



The aim of a leader should be the welfare of the people whom he leads. I
have used 'welfare' to denote the physical, mental and spiritual
well-being of the people. With this aim fixed unflinchingly and
unchangeably before my eyes I consider it my duty to Yoruba people in
particular and to Nigerians in general, to place four imperatives before
you this morning. Two of them are categorical and two are conditional.
Only a peaceful solution must be found to arrest the present worsening
stalemate and restore normalcy. The Eastern Region must be encouraged to
remain part of the Federation. If the Eastern Region is allowed by acts
of omission or commission to secede from or opt out of Nigeria, then the
Western Region and Lagos must also stay out of the Federation. The people
of Western Nigeria and Lagos should participate in the ad hoc committee or
any similar body only on the basis of absolute equality with the other
regions of the Federation.

I would like to comment briefly on these four imperatives. There
has, of late, been a good deal of sabre rattling in some parts of the
country. Those who advocate the use force for the settlement of our
present problems should stop a little and reflect. I can see no vital and
abiding principle involved in any war between the North and the East. If
the East attacked the North, it would be for purpose of revenge pure and
simple. Any claim to the contrary would be untenable. If it is claimed
that such a war is being waged for the purpose of recovering the real and
personal properties left behind in the North by Easterners two insuperable
points are obvious. Firstly, the personal effects left behind by
Easterners have been wholly looted or destroyed, and can no longer be
physically recovered. Secondly, since the real properties are immovable in
case of recovery of them can only be by means of forcible military
occupation of those parts of the North in which these properties are
situated. On the other hand, if the North attacked the East, it could only
be for the purpose of further strengthening and entrenching its position
of dominance in the country.

If it is claimed that an attack on the East is going to be
launched by the Federal Government and not by the North as such and that
it is designed to ensure the unity and integrity of the Federation, two
other insuperable points also become obvious. First, if a war against the
East becomes a necessity it must be agreed to unanimously by the remaining
units of the Federation. In this connection, the West, Mid- West and Lagos
have declared their implacable opposition to the use of force in solving
the present problem. In the face of such declarations by three out of
remaining four territories of Nigeria, a war against the East could only
be a war favoured by the North alone. Second, if the true purpose of such
a war is to preserve the unity and integrity of the Federation, then these
ends can be achieved by the very simple devices of implementing the
recommendation of the committee which met on August 9 1966, as reaffirmed
by a decision of the military leaders at Aburi on January 5 1967 as well
as by accepting such of the demands of the East, West, Mid-West and Lagos
as are manifestly reasonable, and essential for assuring harmonious
relationships and peaceful co-existence between them and their brothers
and sisters in the North.

Some knowledgeable persons have likened an attack on the East to
Lincoln's war against the southern states in America. Two vital factors
distinguish Lincoln's campaign from the one now being contemplated in
Nigeria. The first is that the American civil war was aimed at the
abolition of slavery - that is the liberation of millions of Negroes who
were then still being used as chattels and worse than domestic animals.
The second factor is that Lincoln and others in the northern states were
English-speaking people waging a war of good conscience and humanity
against their fellow nationals who were also English speaking. A war
against the East in which Northern soldiers are predominant, will only
unite the Easterners or the Ibos against their attackers, strengthen them
in their belief that they are not wanted by the majority of their
fellow-Nigerians, and finally push them out of the Federation.

We have been told that an act of secession on the part of the East
would be a signal, in the first instance, for the creation of the COR
state by decree, which would be backed, if need be, by the use of force.
With great respect, I have some dissenting observations to make on this
declaration. There are 11 national or linguistic groups in the COR areas
with a total population of 5.3 millions. These national groups are as
distinct from one another as the Ibos are distinct from them or from the
Yorubas or Hausas. Of the 11, the Efik/Ibibio/Annang national group are
3.2 million strong as against the Ijaws who are only about 700,000 strong.
Ostensibly, the remaining nine national group number 1.4 millions. But
when you have subtracted the Ibo inhabitants from among them, what is left
ranges from the Ngennis who number only 8,000 to the Ogonis who are
220,000 strong. A decree creating a COR state without a plebiscite to
ascertain the wishes of the peoples in the area, would only amount to
subordinating the minority national groups in the state to the dominance
of the Efik/Ibibio/Annang national group. It would be perfectly in order
to create a Calabar state or a Rivers state by decree, and without a
plebiscite. Each is a homogeneous national unit. But before you lump
distinct and diverse national units together in one state, the consent of
each of them is indispensable. Otherwise, the seed of social disquilibrium
in the new state would have been sown.

On the other hand, if the COR State is created by decree after the
Eastern Region shall have made its severance from Nigeria effective, we
should then be waging an unjust war against a foreign state. It would be
an unjust war, because the purpose of it would be to remove 10 minorities
in the East from the dominance of the Ibos only to subordinate them to the
dominance of the Efik/Ibibio/Annang national group. I think I have said
enough to demonstrate that any war against the East, or vice versa, on any
count whatsoever, would be an unholy crusade, for which it would be most
unjustifiable to shed a drop of Nigerian blood. Therefore, only a peaceful
solution must be found, and quickly too to arrest the present rapidly
deteriorating stalemate and restore normalcy.

With regard to the second categorical imperative, it is my
considered view that whilst some of the demands of the East are excessive
within the context of a Nigerian union, most of such demands are not only
wellfounded, but are designed for smooth and steady association amongst
the various national units of Nigeria.

The dependence of the Federal Government on financial
contributions from the regions? These and other such like demands I do not
support. Demands such as these, if accepted, will lead surely to the
complete disintegration of the Federation which is not in the interest of
our people. But I wholeheartedly support the following demands among
others, which we consider reasonable and most of which are already
embodied in our memoranda to the Ad Hoc Committee,

That revenue should be allocated strictly on the basis of
derivation; that is to say after the Federal Government has deducted its
own share for its own services the rest should be allocated to the regions
to which they are attributable.

That the existing public debt of the Federation should become the
responsibility of the regions on the basis of the location of the projects
in respect of each debt whether internal or external.

That each region should have and control its own
militia and police force.

That, with immediate effect, all military personnel should be
posted to their regions of origin,

If we are to live in harmony one with another as Nigerians it is
imperative that these demands and others which are not related, should be
met without further delay by those who have hitherto resisted them. To
those who may argue that the acceptance of these demands will amount to
transforming Nigeria into a federation with a weak central government, my
comment is that any link however tenuous, which keeps the East in the
Nigerian union, is better in my view than no link at all.

Before the Western delegates went to Lagos to attend the meetings
of the ad hoc committee, they were given a clear mandate that if any
region should opt out of the Federation of Nigeria, then the Federation
should be considered to be at an end, and that the Western Region and
Lagos should also opt out of it. It would then be up to Western Nigeria
and Lagos as an independent sovereign state to enter into association with
any of the Nigerian units of its own choosing, and on terms mutually
acceptable to them. I see no reason for departing from this mandate. If
any region in Nigeria considers itself strong enough to compel us to enter
into association with it on its own terms, I would only wish such a region
luck. But such luck, I must warn, will, in the long run be no better than
that which has attended the doings of all colonial powers down the ages.
This much I must say in addition, on this point. We have neither military
might nor the overwhelming advantage of numbers here in Western Nigeria
and Lagos. But we have justice of a noble and imperishable cause on our
side, namely: the right of a people to unfettered self-determination. If
this is so, then God is on our side, and if God is with us then we have
nothing whatsoever in this world to fear.

The fourth imperative, and the second conditional one has been
fully dealt with in my recent letter to the Military Governor of Western
Nigeria, Col. Robert Adebayo, and in the representation which your
deputation made last year to the head of the Federal Military Government,
Lt. Col. Yakubu Gowon. As a matter of fact, as far back as November last
year a smaller meeting of leaders of thought in this Region decided that
unless certain things were done, we would no longer participate in the
meeting of the ad hoc committee. But since then, not even one of our
legitimate requests has been granted. I will, therefore, take no more of
your time in making further comments on a point with which you are well
familiar. As soon as our humble and earnest requests are met, I shall be
ready to take my place on the ad hoc committee. But certainly, not before.

In closing, I have this piece of advice to give. In order to resolve
amiably and in the best interests of all Nigerians certain attributes are
required on the part of Nigerian leaders, military as well as non-military
leaders alike, namely: vision, realism and unselfishness. But above all ,
what will keep Nigerian leaders in the North and East unwaveringly in the
path of wisdom, realism and moderation is courage and steadfastness on the
part of Yoruba people in the course of what they sincerely believe to be
right, equitable and just. In the past five years we in the West and Lagos
have shown that we possess these qualities in a large measure. If we
demonstrate them again as we did in the past, calmly and heroically, we
will save Nigeria from further bloodshed and imminent wreck and, at the
same time, preserve our freedom and self-respect into the bargain.

May God rule and guide our deliberations here, and endow all the
Nigerian leaders with the vision, realism, and unselfishness as well as
courage and steadfastness in the course of truth, which the present
circumstances demand. "


(Culled from Daily Times, 2 May 1967) and quoted in "Crisis and Conflict in Nigeria (Volume 1), January 1966-July 1971" by A.H. M. Kirk-Greene)

Andre Uweh:

You are the only reasonable Yoruba poster here so far. Awo claimed that if the East will go, the west will go as well. If he had kept his promise or if the west had remained neutral, the north alone could not have defeated Biafra. It was a great betrayal on Awo's part.

How does what Awo state below translate into the above in Bold? It appears that a lack of understanding of English Language is a major problem.

"The Eastern Region must be encouraged to
remain part of the Federation. If the Eastern Region is allowed by acts
of omission or commission to secede from or opt out of Nigeria, then the
Western Region and Lagos must also stay out of the Federation. The people
of Western Nigeria and Lagos should participate in the ad hoc committee or
any similar body only on the basis of absolute equality with the other
regions of the Federation."


Speech by Chief Obafemi Awolowo made to the Western leaders of thought, in
Ibadan, 1 May 1967. (Culled from Daily Times, 2 May 1967) and quoted in
"Crisis and Conflict in Nigeria (Volume 1), January 1966-July 1971" by A.
H. M. Kirk-Greene.

Andre Uweh:

You are the only reasonable Yoruba poster here so far. Awo claimed that if the East will go, the west will go as well. If he had kept his promise or if the west had remained neutral, the north alone could not have defeated Biafra. It was a great betrayal on Awo's part.

You people and your lies sha. Even sef, only a foolish man go send millions to their death based on what another man said.

It's not really hard to conclude that you people are very weak mentaly and very naive.

Enough with the lies. There are books and other forms of literature out there. Don't some of these guys get tired of being ignorant. They make an ignorant comment, you correct them by presenting facts; they retort to emotional characterizations or outright silence without acknowledging that they were misled, and then come out with another ignorant statement.

Katsumoto:

Indeed the Biafran delegation to the peace talks in Kampala walked out on May 31st, 1968. In support of Ojukwu’s position, another unnamed Biafran officer told the British journalist, John de St. Jorre,


[size=16pt]
[b]“If you gave us the choice of 1000 rifles or milk for 50,000 starving children, we’d take the guns.” [/b][/size]


http://www.militaryphotos.net/forums/showthread.php?25442-Nigerian-Army-blunders-during-the-civil-war-Part-1

I guess nobody from the East found the above cold and chilling??

They are only experts at pointing out chilling statements and actions from across the Niger.

Eko Ile:


I am still waiting to see the video where Ojukwu stopped food from landing in Biafra
I want to see your evidence that Biafra was asking food from Nigeria
Those things are not in the video you flaunt around with.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tSqhqP3U-t4&feature=related

I want to see evidence of Awo's claim that Biafrans looted and burnt the Central Bank in Biafra


Ojukwu did threaten that food supply would be stopped if not accompanied with fuel and money and he explained carefully what the money was to be used for.

The narrator in the video did imply that without the aid (money, food and ammunition (ammunition from France) the war would have long been over.

Your attempts to interpret that in your own selfish way has failed.

From Awo's interview three things are clear:

1. He did sign the 20-pounds policy
2. He lied about Nigeria supplying food to Biafra
3. He stopped foreign food supply to Biafra via Nigerian air space, thereby committing an act of genocide according to the UN regulations

reading through all these comments coming from yoruba people i feel shivers running down my spine, yes not every thing the igbos are accusing awolowo may be true but nobody can ever forget why the  war started in the first place,

we all know food sent to biafra through nigeria was poisoned cause river people rejected eating anything that came through  nigeria.

we all know egyptian planes were bombing farms, churches and feeding centres all accross then biafra.i feel the hatred for awolowo and yorubas came not from betrayal but from how extreme they were in their support of the north agains the east and  also the 20 pounds saga, also it seems the yorubas fought the war as if they had issues to grind with igbos, if you read aduekunle role in the  war and his comments you will be so ashamed to call yourself a nigerian.

all ethnic groups participated in the war but if you notice all of them appologised and admitted their mistakes from ogoni, ijaws,hausa,tiv edos etc but there seem to be this self denial by yorubas about the whole thing, hell even some like dayokanu,bluetooth etc are mocking the dead biafrans and praising adekunle, wonders shall never end, the earlier we all go our seperate ways the better for them. the funny thing while some people are trying to justify what the nigerian side did the same thing that lead to the war are still happening today, some people are calling for revolution and occupy nigeria and at the same time painting people that tried it before as bad and must be killed. nawa

katsumoto you should not have engaged yourself in such threads it always better for such trheads to die after one or 2 posts now you have shown your true colour of how evil you can be trying as much as possible to deny evil while ekoile and the rest are trying to prove that yes evil is good .

lol, Very cold blooded indeed. Watch the video I posted, apart from ojuku demanding bribe for food, the aid food people said he told them to loading their planes with fuel instead of food.

By stopping food supply to the civilian masses, Awo committed genocide on the basis of the 1979 Protocol II of the Geneva Convention to regulate internal conflict.

You guys are just repeating what I said earlier but with style. Am happy you guys know that Awo your demi-god said so. There is an Eastern Nigerian saying that goes like this ''it is with skill and tact that is used in letting an Obi to know that he has a bad breath''.
The war is long over, Ndigbo are an integral part of Nigeria again. Am happy with that.
Hope you guys are happy now.

You guys are just repeating what I said earlier but with style. Am happy you guys know that Awo your demi-god said so. There is an Eastern Nigerian saying that goes like this ''it is with skill and tact that is used in letting an Obi to know that he has a bad breath''.
The war is long over, Ndigbo are an integral part of Nigeria again. Am happy with that.
Hope you guys are happy now.

Eko Ile:

lol, Very cold blooded indeed. Watch the video I posted, apart from ojuku demanding bribe for food, the aid food people said he told them to loading their planes with fuel instead of food.

Are you that unable to listen? It implies[b] load fuel in addition to food [/b]not load fuel instead of food.

It says ''If you do not bring fuel you would not be allowed to bring in food''. As clearly stated as crystal. Nothing was said like bring in fuel instead of food.

Again, there was no time that threat was carried out as both food and money were sent in by the aid agencies. Awo was the one who carried out his own of stopping food supply to civilians.

I think the reason while we are still here; arguing over dead issue is because we have failed in our responsibilities to face each other and tell ourselves the bitter truth. I do not think Awolowo or Gowon own Ibo people an apology for what happened during Biafra. The meaning of war is known even to dead mind. What do you expect from your opponent during the war? To continue to feed you, this is strange to a reasonable mind.
People are still entertaining this type of reasoning today, not because it makes sense but just for peace to reign. Let put the past behind us and think of how to make the future better.

Eko Ile,
You need to be prepared to comment on the civil war issues. If you were to be truthful to yourself and to Nigeria as you always proclaim, you will have accepted that Awo has just presented a rationalization of his actions while with Gowon. Awo's starvation policy was well stated and announced by that his infamous comment,"Starvation is an instrument of war" We are talking about territorial blockade aimed at civilian supplies which fall under the green corridor terms of the Geneva convention. It is very shameful and cheap for Awo to be talking about soldiers ambushing food meant for kwasiokor victims.  Awo must have been thinking that his audience were very uneducated. May be they were.

Why did Awo think that he was right in the face of millions of Biafrans who had their papers to confirm of their deposits and savings only to be told that a flat rate of 20 pounds had been declared by the fed govt.? It is very sad to see these kinds of comments by Awo and they were made in times when the military provided him enough cover and only people like Ojukwu had the guts to challenge him.
Do you not know that the term "abandoned property" took after "abandoned jobs". Abandoned jobs was the term given to positions hitherto held by Igbos in companies like UAC, JOHN HOLT SHELL etc. On return, these Igbos were told that they abandoned their jobs. That was where the term abandoned property took its growth from. Their positions were given to Yorubas and their cronies. Let me tell you something, people like Awo should be happy with the Igbo that they did not face prosecution for crimes against humanity for all their atrocities in and after the war.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/11/27/world/africa/odumegwu-ojukwu-leader-of-breakaway-republic-of-biafra-dies-at-78.html?pagewanted=1&_r=2&partner=rss&emc=rss

Odumegwu Ojukwu, Breakaway Biafra Leader, Dies at 78
By ROBERT D. McFADDEN
Published: November 26, 2011

 
Odumegwu Ojukwu, an Oxford-educated Nigerian colonel who proclaimed the Republic of Biafra in 1967 and led his Ibo people into a secessionist war that cost more than a million lives, many of them starved children whose skeletal images shocked the world, has died at a hospital in London. He was 78.
Enlarge This Image
Associated Press

Odumegwu Ojukwu, left, taking an oath in 1967 to be the leader of the Republic of Biafra, just after it declared independence.
Metro Twitter Logo.
Connect With Us on Twitter


International news reports quoted Maja Umeh, a spokesman for the All Progressive Grand Alliance Party in Nigeria, as confirming Mr. Ojukwu’s death. The Associated Press said he died on Saturday, but Bloomberg News said the death occurred on Friday. The cause was not cited. Mr. Ojukwu had a stroke at his home in Enugu, Nigeria, in December 2010, and had since been under treatment in London.

Mr. Ojukwu was an unlikely militarist and a reluctant rebel: the sports-car-driving son of one of Nigeria’s richest men, an urbane student of history and Shakespeare who read voraciously, wrote poetry, played tennis and, with his wealth and connections, might have been a business mogul or a worldly rouge-et-noir playboy.

But he spurned his father’s offer of a business partnership, joined Nigeria’s civil service and then its army in the turbulent last years of British colonial rule. And as maps of Africa were redrawn by forces of national and tribal self-determination, he became military governor of the Ibo homeland, one of three tribal regions, at a historic juncture.

At 33, he found himself at the vortex of simmering ethnic rivalries among Nigeria’s Hausas in the north, Yorubas in the southwest and Ibos in the southeast. The largely Christian Ibos were envied as one of Africa’s best-educated and most industrious peoples, possessed of much of Nigeria’s oil wealth. Tensions finally exploded into assassinations, coups and a massacre of 30,000 Ibos by Hausas and federal troops.

While he denounced the massacre and cited other Ibo grievances, Colonel Ojukwu for months resisted rising Ibo pressure for secession. He proposed a weak federation to separate Nigeria’s three tribal regions politically. But Col. Yakubu Gowon, leader of the military government in Lagos, rejected the idea. A clash over federal taxation of the Ibo region’s oil and coal industries precipitated the final break.

“Long live the Republic of Biafra,” Colonel Ojukwu proclaimed on May 30, 1967.

Five weeks later, civil war began when Nigerian military forces invaded the breakaway province. It was a lopsided war, with other nations supporting federal forces seeking to unify the country and Biafra standing virtually alone. Nigeria was Africa’s most populous nation, with 57 million people, of which 8 million to 10 million were Ibos.

Poorly equipped and outnumbered four to one, Biafra’s 25,000-member army held its own for months, supported by a[b] citizenry that donated food, clothing and supplies. Colonel Ojukwu ran Biafra as a wartime democracy, fought alongside his troops and was said to be revered by his people.[/b]

He gave orders in a slow, deliberate baritone: native Igbo with an Oxford accent. Fond of Sibelius, he chose “Finlandia” as Biafra’s national anthem. And he read Shakespeare. “Hamlet was my favorite,” he told a New York Times correspondent. “I wonder what the psychiatrists will make of that.”

Over a battle map he looked like a brooding Othello, with solemn eyes and a luxuriantly bearded countenance. He slept irregularly, sometimes working nonstop for days, taking a meal now and then, rarely touching alcohol but chain-smoking English cigarettes.

Tanzania, Zambia, the Ivory Coast and Gabon recognized Biafra, and France and other nations provided covert aid. But the Soviet Union, Egypt and even Britain, after a period of neutrality, supplied weapons and advisers to Nigeria. The United States, officially neutral, provided diplomatic and relief coordination aid. But after 15 months of war, Biafra’s 29,000 square miles had been reduced to 5,000, and deaths had soared.

As crops burned and refugees streamed away from advancing federal forces, much of the population was cut off from food supplies. As the 30-month civil war moved onto the world stage as one of the first televised wars, millions around the globe were stunned by pictures of Biafran babies with distended bellies and skeletal children who were succumbing to famine by the thousands daily in the war’s final stages.

Colonel Ojukwu appealed to the world to save his people. International relief agencies responded, and scores of cargo planes ferried food in to the encircled Biafrans, but airlifts were woefully inadequate. Deaths from starvation were estimated at more than 6,000 a day, and postwar studies suggested that a third of Biafra’s surviving preschoolers — nearly 500,000 — were malnourished at war’s end.


In January 1970, secessionist resistance was crushed and its leader, by then a general, fled into exile in Ivory Coast and London. Granted a presidential pardon after 13 years, he returned to Nigeria in 1982 and was welcomed by enormous crowds. He became a Lagos businessman and ran unsuccessfully for president several times, but remained a hero in the eyes of many of his countrymen.

The legacies of the war were terrible. Deaths from fighting, disease and starvation were estimated by international relief agencies at one million to three million. Besides widespread destruction of hospitals, schools, homes and businesses, Ibos faced discrimination in employment, housing and political rights. Nigeria reabsorbed Biafra, however, and the region was rebuilt over 20 years as its oil-based economy prospered anew.

Chukwuemeka Odumegwu Ojukwu (pronounced chuk-woo-MA-ka oh-doo-MAG-woo oh-JU-kwoo) was born on Nov. 4, 1933, in Zungeru, Nigeria. From modest beginnings, his father, Sir Louis Phillipe Odumegwu Ojukwu, had made fortunes in transportation and real estate, and was Nigeria’s wealthiest entrepreneur when he died in 1966.

The boy nicknamed Emeka attended Kings College in Lagos, Nigeria’s most prestigious secondary school; Epson College, a boys’ prep school in Surrey, and Lincoln College, Oxford, where he graduated with honors in history in 1955. Classmates said he was popular, dressed stylishly, drove a bright red MG sports car and loved discussions of Machiavelli, Hobbes, Louis XIV and Shakespeare.

He had three wives. His first, Njideka, a law student he met at Oxford and wed in 1962, died in 2010. His second, Stella Onyeador, died in 2009. He married Bianca Odinaka Onoh, a former beauty queen and businesswoman 34 years his junior, in 1994. Returning to Nigeria in 1956, he rejected his father’s business overtures, worked on development in remote villages, and in 1957 joined the army. He called himself an amateur soldier, but rose rapidly in the ranks after Nigeria gained independence in 1960. In 1966, he became military governor of the Ibo region, and declared Biafran independence after repression enveloped his people.

He sometimes compared Biafrans to Israelis. “The Israelis are hard-working, enterprising people,” he told a visitor to his besieged field headquarters in 1969. “So are we. They’ve suffered from pogroms. So have we. In many ways, we share the same promise and the same problems.”

Where de food we Awo claim to have supplied?

Nchara:

By stopping food supply to the civilian masses, Awo committed genocide on the basis of the 1979 Protocol II of the Geneva Convention to regulate internal conflict.

But the war ended in 1970
Moreover, how Awo have stopped the supply of food?? I think you are giving a "finance minster" too much credit.

jason123:

But the war ended in 1970 
Moreover, how Awo have stopped the supply of food?? I think you are giving a "finance minster" too much credit.

Yes, I was coming to that. That was probably his saving grace that the 1979 regulation was not proactive.
Did you read his interview where he claimed he was supplying food to Biafra and that had to stop because the food was being hijacked by soldiers? He, not Gowon, said it, no?

1. He lied about Nigeria supplying food to Biafra
2. He had no moral right to stop foreign food supply to Biafran civilians for whatever reason.

I am really disappointed with folks believing what came out of awolowo's mouth - a WRETCHED LIAR !

a man who have no respect for God given life , EVEN HIS OWN. ( died of Rat poison)
[img]http://images.profileengine.com/large/433025692/chief.obafemi.awolowo[/img]

http://www.igbolandforum.com/index.php?topic=674.0

Ojukwu clear said, YES, WE USED THE PLIGHT OF OUR PEOPLE FOR THE WARS PROPAGANDA. THATS TRUE, BUT THE BLOCKAGE OF THE CAUSE OF KWASHOKO WAS ALSO TRUE.

awolowo and the Hausa are very silly and myopic. when the war started, there were lots of Igbos and Efik people especially the ones in Lagos and other non-northern towns, who were vehemently against the war. even in the eastern assemble there were many , tho in minority who vote against the war.

The awolowo and his Hausa Muslim furore ganged up to establish a genocidal pogrom on all Easterners even those against the war, many Igbos were killed in Lagos, in kogi etc, making those Igbos to accept Ojukwu propaganda that the Hausa are bent on killing them all.

[flash=480,390]
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tSqhqP3U-t4&feature=player_embedded#![/flash]

http://www.igbolandforum.com/index.php?topic=709.0

Nchara:

Are you that unable to read? It says[b] load fuel in addition to food [/b]not load fuel instead of food.

It says ''If you do not bring fuel you would not be allowed to bring in food''. As clearly stated as crystal. Nothing like bring in fuel instead of food.

Again there was no time that threat was carried out. Awo was the one who carried out his own of stopping food supply to civilians.

Please answer yes or no.

Was the fuel for your starving people to eat or drink?

What's more important for your starving people? Food or fuel?

Onlya foolish , heartless and cold blooded leader places conditions on food delivery for his own dying people.


Btw, please dont tell us it's was never enforced because you dont know, the fact that he put such disastrus policy out there while his own people are dying was cold blooded.

macjive01:

I am really disappointed with folks believing what came out of awolowo's mouth - a WRETCHED LIAR !

a man who have no respect for God given life , EVEN HIS OWN. ( died of Rat poison)
Ojukwu clear said, YES, WE USED THE PLIGHT OF OUR PEOPLE FOR THE WARS PROPAGANDA. THATS TRUE, BUT THE BLOCKAGE OF THE CAUSE OF KWASHOKO WAS ALSO TRUE.

awolowo and the Hausa are very silly and myopic. when the war started, there were lots of Igbos and Efik people especially the ones in Lagos and other non-northern towns, who were vehemently against the war. even in the eastern assemble there were many , tho in minority who vote against the war.

The awolowo and his Hausa Muslim furore ganged up to establish a genocidal pogrom on all Easterners even those against the war, many Igbos were killed in Lagos, in kogi etc, making those Igbos to accept Ojukwu propaganda that the Hausa are bent on killing them all.

^^^
So Igbos were killed in Lagos, abi?? You are unbelievably silly!
So Awo died of rat poison, abi? If dem start with una  and Ojukwu now, you go dey shout up and down like headless chicken.
Btw, after the surrender, did they kill all the Igbos left?? Think about this logically, you realise the folly in your reasoning

LFJ:

I think the reason while we are still here; arguing over dead issue is because we have failed in our responsibilities to face each other and tell ourselves the bitter truth. I do not think Awolowo or Gowon own Ibo people an apology for what happened during Biafra. The meaning of war is known even to dead mind. What do you expect from your opponent during the war? To continue to feed you, this is strange to a reasonable mind.
People are still entertaining this type of reasoning today, not because it makes sense but just for peace to reign. Let put the past behind us and think of how to make the future better.

i dont think there was every a time biafrans expected or asked food from nigeria. am not sure where you got that from. or how awolowo came up with that cause its laughable. pls lets all assume that interview is fake cause its filled with soo much lies even though he admitted the 20 pounds policy

“I want see no Red Cross, no Caritas, no World Council of Churches, no pope, no missionary, and no United Nations Delegation. I want to prevent even one Igbo from having even one piece to eat before their capitulation. We shoot at everything that moves and when our troops march into the center of Igbo territory, we shoot at everything even a things that don’t move”—Benjamin Adekunle

The above statement showed all Biafrans that the fed forces were out to kill all of them. Ojukwu did not tell them that. Adekunle made that statement. in Port Harcourt.

Sorry, I dont do factless opinions  or emotional sentiments.

Ajillo:

Eko Ile,
You need to be prepared to comment on the civil war issues. If you were to be truthful to yourself and to Nigeria as you always proclaim, you will have accepted that Awo has just presented a rationalization of his actions while with Gowon. Awo's starvation policy was well stated and announced by that his infamous comment,"Starvation is an instrument of war" We are talking about territorial blockade aimed at civilian supplies which fall under the green corridor terms of the Geneva convention. It is very shameful and cheap for Awo to be talking about soldiers ambushing food meant for kwasiokor victims.  Awo must have been thinking that his audience were very uneducated. May be they were.

Why did Awo think that he was right in the face of millions of Biafrans who had their papers to confirm of their deposits and savings only to be told that a flat rate of 20 pounds had been declared by the fed govt.? It is very sad to see these kinds of comments by Awo and they were made in times when the military provided him enough cover and only people like Ojukwu had the guts to challenge him.
Do you not know that the term "abandoned property" took after "abandoned jobs". Abandoned jobs was the term given to positions hitherto held by Igbos in companies like UAC, JOHN HOLT SHELL etc. On return, these Igbos were told that they abandoned their jobs. That was where the term abandoned property took its growth from. Their positions were given to Yorubas and their cronies. Let me tell you something, people like Awo should be happy with the Igbo that they did not face prosecution for crimes against humanity for all their atrocities in and after the war.

jason123:


^^^
So Igbos were killed in Lagos, abi?? You are unbelievably silly!
So Awo died of rat poison, abi? If dem start with una  and Ojukwu now, you go dey shout up and down like headless chicken.
Btw, after the surrender, did they kill all the Igbos left?? Think about this logically, you realise the folly in your reasoning

They are just too emotional, it's hard to be rational when all you have is raw emotion.

Eko Ile:

Please answer yes or no.

Was the fuel for your starving people to eat or drink?

What's more important for your starving people? Food or fuel?

Onlya foolish , heartless and cold blooded leader places conditions on food delivery for his own dying people.


Btw, please dont tell us it's was never enforced because you dont know, the fact that he put such disastrus policy out there while his own people are dying was cold blooded.

You still do not get it. He asked for both and never one. You are mentally unable to listen to and digest your own video?
Both were supplied. The war went on
No enforcement of the threat was made, otherwise we would have seen it just like we saw evidence of the threat itself. Okay?
But Awo enforced it and killed millions of children. That, my friend, is the difference.

i dont even think this is about the war itself but about how some people are justifying and supporting whatever the nigerian side did to the biafran side and we expect a united south and some people even calling for occupy nigeria? its just funny , i have always maintained igbos and yorubas can never be in on country if this nigeria splits.

The threat was a strategy that worked for Biafra to get arms. You can threaten heaven and earth, but another thing is to actually carry out the threat.
Here, Ojukwu threatened, and Awo carried out the threat.