From the Guardian archive, Nigeria's coming civil war
In 1967 Biafra was declared a separate state from Nigeria. Here is how the Guardian reported the news.

Having broken apart, Nigeria is now preparing for civil war. Major-General Gowon, who was promoted from Colonel yesterday, is apparently ready to follow up his blockade of the breakaway east - now called Biafra - with a full-scale invasion. In this he presumably expects the support of Nigeria's partners in the Commonwealth and her fellow members of the UN and the OAU - at least the tacit support of respecting the blockade and not recognising Biafra.
Advertisement

It will be a futile war. It is unlikely to unseat the embattled government of Colonel Ojukwu, and even if it does, it will not achieve the declared aim of restoring a workable federation. For most of the Ibo, who predominate in the east, last year's massacres in the north - and their implied end to the free movement of Nigerians within their country - meant the effective end of the federation. To follow this up by an invasion would merely be to drive a nail in the coffin. Biafia's non-Ibo minority is admittedly divided: some supporting Ojukwu's regime and others opposing it. Also, the presence of more than a million refugees - and the possibility of another million now arriving - has stored up a host of social and perhaps political problems for the self-proclaimed republic. But while the threat from Lagos lasts, support for Ojukwu will remain overwhelming. Invasion can only reinforce it further.

In reality it would not be a federal war as much as a northern one. The Yoruba of the western region are divided. Chief Awolowo, hitherto their most popular leader, has said - and apparently confirmed it after Biafra's secession - that the west would not wish to remain in a truncated federation. This section of the Yoruba, at any rate, would hardly support an invasion of Biafra. Similar reservations have been openly expressed in the midwest region.

In so far as it would be a northerners' war, one of its main objects would be revenge against the easterners for having dared to challenge federal, which is primarily northern, authority. One party in the north, at any rate, appears to want to teach the Ibo a lesson without any corresponding desire to keep them as federal partners. But the easterners are not the first to contemplate secession. The north openly threatened it in 1960 unless it was guaranteed half the seats in the federal parliament. It threatened it again last year unless General Ironsi repealed his "unitary decree". It proposed it once more in July and indeed, secession appeared to be Colonel Gowon's original intention when he assumed office. Now it is the easterners who have departed.

A deeper northern motive would be to secure the landlocked region's outlet to the sea. One of the two routes, through the east, is already blocked and the other, through the west, would be threatened if the west were to break away also. But could it be kept open in a federation maintained by force? The violent disorders in the west in 1965, in protest against the northern-backed regime of Chief Akintola, suggest that it could not. If Nigeria does break up, nothing could ensure the evacuation of northern produce more effectively than a Common Services organisation. This is perhaps the best solution to the Nigerian crisis. It is the kind of arrangement the north itself proposed in July last year - and the east has been proposing since then. Now, no region would benefit more from it than the north. By insisting on war the northerners would risk destroying their own vital interests.

Inevitably, outsiders have been drawn, into the conflict. The big shipping and trading companies, who have larger interests in the north and the west than in the east, are observing the blockade. The oil companies, whose exports all originate in the east, are in a different position and may be anxious for Biafra to be recognised. Britain could hardly do this until Colonel Ojukwu's breakaway regime has proved itself firmly in control. But we should immediately make it clear to General Gowon that our only interest is in a stable solution and that war will bring this no nearer.

Biafra failed the moment Igbo tried to extend their territory to SS and SW.

I know they will argue with me, I know some of them don't understand history.

But I have said my own.

EastGold:
Biafra failed the moment Igbo tried to extend their territory to SS and SW.

I know they will argue with me, I know some of them don't understand history.

But I have said my own.

who said Biafra failed? Yoruba Muslims!

Give us the name of the then Editor of guardian and a screenshot, this could have been fabricated


and if it isn't fabricated , this is propaganda


how did it end ';?

LIU

The destruction of biafra came because Ojukwu "overdo", he should have remain in the Eastern region not him advancing towards the Midwest, that was his undoing, he was myopic and mentally unstable to think Gowon will allow such, Ojukwu want to take over Lagos for obvious reasons, greed. he waste 3 million people for his own selfish interest, he cut food supply to the Eastern region, leaving people to die of hunger

The civil war was a mistake. The separation should have happened

Frankdaz9:
From the Guardian archive, Nigeria's coming civil war
In 1967 Biafra was declared a separate state from Nigeria. Here is how the Guardian reported the news.

Having broken apart, Nigeria is now preparing for civil war. Major-General Gowon, who was promoted from Colonel yesterday, is apparently ready to follow up his blockade of the breakaway east - now called Biafra - with a full-scale invasion. In this he presumably expects the support of Nigeria's partners in the Commonwealth and her fellow members of the UN and the OAU - at least the tacit support of respecting the blockade and not recognising Biafra.
Advertisement

It will be a futile war. It is unlikely to unseat the embattled government of Colonel Ojukwu, and even if it does, it will not achieve the declared aim of restoring a workable federation. For most of the Ibo, who predominate in the east, last year's massacres in the north - and their implied end to the free movement of Nigerians within their country - meant the effective end of the federation. To follow this up by an invasion would merely be to drive a nail in the coffin. Biafia's non-Ibo minority is admittedly divided: some supporting Ojukwu's regime and others opposing it. Also, the presence of more than a million refugees - and the possibility of another million now arriving - has stored up a host of social and perhaps political problems for the self-proclaimed republic. But while the threat from Lagos lasts, support for Ojukwu will remain overwhelming. Invasion can only reinforce it further.

In reality it would not be a federal war as much as a northern one. The Yoruba of the western region are divided. Chief Awolowo, hitherto their most popular leader, has said - and apparently confirmed it after Biafra's secession - that the west would not wish to remain in a truncated federation. This section of the Yoruba, at any rate, would hardly support an invasion of Biafra. Similar reservations have been openly expressed in the midwest region.

In so far as it would be a northerners' war, one of its main objects would be revenge against the easterners for having dared to challenge federal, which is primarily northern, authority. One party in the north, at any rate, appears to want to teach the Ibo a lesson without any corresponding desire to keep them as federal partners. But the easterners are not the first to contemplate secession. The north openly threatened it in 1960 unless it was guaranteed half the seats in the federal parliament. It threatened it again last year unless General Ironsi repealed his "unitary decree". It proposed it once more in July and indeed, secession appeared to be Colonel Gowon's original intention when he assumed office. Now it is the easterners who have departed.

A deeper northern motive would be to secure the landlocked region's outlet to the sea. One of the two routes, through the east, is already blocked and the other, through the west, would be threatened if the west were to break away also. But could it be kept open in a federation maintained by force? The violent disorders in the west in 1965, in protest against the northern-backed regime of Chief Akintola, suggest that it could not. If Nigeria does break up, nothing could ensure the evacuation of northern produce more effectively than a Common Services organisation. This is perhaps the best solution to the Nigerian crisis. It is the kind of arrangement the north itself proposed in July last year - and the east has been proposing since then. Now, no region would benefit more from it than the north. By insisting on war the northerners would risk destroying their own vital interests.

Inevitably, outsiders have been drawn, into the conflict. The big shipping and trading companies, who have larger interests in the north and the west than in the east, are observing the blockade. The oil companies, whose exports all originate in the east, are in a different position and may be anxious for Biafra to be recognised. Britain could hardly do this until Colonel Ojukwu's breakaway regime has proved itself firmly in control. But we should immediately make it clear to General Gowon that our only interest is in a stable solution and that war will bring this no nearer.

Guy The Guardian newspaper was founded in 1983 So please how is possible they reported a news that happen 1967?

EastGold:
Biafra failed the moment Igbo tried to extend their territory to SS and SW.

I know they will argue with me, I know some of them don't understand history.

But I have said my own.

stop talking rubbish.
Nigeria of 1967 is not the same as Nigeria of 2020.
in your warped thinking,Biafra of 1967 is just the 5 south eastern states of today.smh

overall90:


stop talking rubbish.
Nigeria of 1967 is not the same as Nigeria of 2020.
in your warped thinking,Biafra of 1967 is just the 5 south eastern states of today.smh

Uyo and PH is part of the 5 SE states today nau

Frankdaz9:
who said Biafra failed? Yoruba Muslims!

You will live and die a Nigerian.


Argue with your keyboard

Yorubas and their propaganda.

Which Guardian News Reported this.

It will be a futile war. It is unlikely to unseat the embattled government of Colonel Ojukwu, and even if it does, it will not achieve the declared aim of restoring a workable federation.

As it was in 1967 and so it's now.The contraption called Nigeria has simply refused to work.

EastGold:



You will live and die a Nigerian.


Argue with your keyboard

You are very ignorant - even in this internet age when all issues can be researched and investigated

EastGold:
Biafra failed the moment Igbo tried to extend their territory to SS and SW.

I know they will argue with me, I know some of them don't understand history.

But I have said my own.

God bless Mazi Nnamdi Kanu

EastGold:
Biafra failed the moment Igbo tried to extend their territory to SS and SW.

I know they will argue with me, I know some of them don't understand history.

But I have said my own.

Well said
The day Ojukwu eyed Midwest and Lagos and Ibadan was the day the Biafra dream was over

Osaze007:


Well said
The day Ojukwu eyed Midwest and Lagos and Ibadan was the day the Biafra dream was over

They even took their madness to Ọrẹ.

But some of these IPOB guys do not understand this history

See what awolowo clearly said,"if the Igbo's leave we will leave too". To show you that Yoruba's can't stay in Nigeria without us,no wonder awolowo betrayed us.imagine a Nigeria without the Igbo's..chai I can't wait to leave this cursed nation.

overall90:


stop talking rubbish.
Nigeria of 1967 is not the same as Nigeria of 2020.
in your warped thinking,Biafra of 1967 is just the 5 south eastern states of today.smh

In your thinking, Biafra of 1967 included the former Mid West and Ore?

Biafra failed the day they invaded other regions. It changed their aims from secession to conquest and colonisation.

In addition
It's the same reason Biafra failed today. The Biafrans can't get their eyes off the old mid west. they are even eying Benue join.

The Biafran war was always about those who were fighting to be free of Northern domination and those who were fighting to eternal slaves of the North

Unfortunately for Biafra, the eternal slaves were far more in number

Hmm

seunmsg:

EastGold:


They even took their madness to Ọrẹ.

But some of these IPOB guys do not understand this history

They know
They are also not apologetic about it
Hence Yorubas are not apologetic about their response

BlowYourMind:
The destruction of biafra came because Ojukwu "overdo", he should have remain in the Eastern region not him advancing towards the Midwest, that was his undoing, he was myopic and mentally unstable to think Gowon will allow such, Ojukwu want to take over Lagos for obvious reasons, greed. he waste 3 million people for his own selfish interest, he cut food supply to the Eastern region, leaving people to die of hunger

Please stop bursting big fat lies here. Ojukwu was in charge of the eastern region and he fought for them. He never extended anywhere close to midbelt or south west.

Muna4real:


Please stop bursting big fat lies here. Ojukwu was in charge of the eastern region and he fought for them. He never extended anywhere close to midbelt or south west.

biafran soldiers captured ore. Go and read it

wirinet:

In your thinking, Biafra of 1967 included the former Mid West and Ore?

Biafra failed the day they invaded other regions. It changed their aims from secession to conquest and colonisation.

In addition
It's the same reason Biafra failed today. The Biafrans can't get their eyes off the old mid west. they are even eying Benue join.

you are very free to wallow in your ignorance.

Frankdaz9:
From the Guardian archive, Nigeria's coming civil war
In 1967 Biafra was declared a separate state from Nigeria. Here is how the Guardian reported the news.

Having broken apart, Nigeria is now preparing for civil war. Major-General Gowon, who was promoted from Colonel yesterday, is apparently ready to follow up his blockade of the breakaway east - now called Biafra - with a full-scale invasion. In this he presumably expects the support of Nigeria's partners in the Commonwealth and her fellow members of the UN and the OAU - at least the tacit support of respecting the blockade and not recognising Biafra.
Advertisement

It will be a futile war. It is unlikely to unseat the embattled government of Colonel Ojukwu, and even if it does, it will not achieve the declared aim of restoring a workable federation. For most of the Ibo, who predominate in the east, last year's massacres in the north - and their implied end to the free movement of Nigerians within their country - meant the effective end of the federation. To follow this up by an invasion would merely be to drive a nail in the coffin. Biafia's non-Ibo minority is admittedly divided: some supporting Ojukwu's regime and others opposing it. Also, the presence of more than a million refugees - and the possibility of another million now arriving - has stored up a host of social and perhaps political problems for the self-proclaimed republic. But while the threat from Lagos lasts, support for Ojukwu will remain overwhelming. Invasion can only reinforce it further.

In reality it would not be a federal war as much as a northern one. The Yoruba of the western region are divided. Chief Awolowo, hitherto their most popular leader, has said - and apparently confirmed it after Biafra's secession - that the west would not wish to remain in a truncated federation. This section of the Yoruba, at any rate, would hardly support an invasion of Biafra. Similar reservations have been openly expressed in the midwest region.

In so far as it would be a northerners' war, one of its main objects would be revenge against the easterners for having dared to challenge federal, which is primarily northern, authority. One party in the north, at any rate, appears to want to teach the Ibo a lesson without any corresponding desire to keep them as federal partners. But the easterners are not the first to contemplate secession. The north openly threatened it in 1960 unless it was guaranteed half the seats in the federal parliament. It threatened it again last year unless General Ironsi repealed his "unitary decree". It proposed it once more in July and indeed, secession appeared to be Colonel Gowon's original intention when he assumed office. Now it is the easterners who have departed.

A deeper northern motive would be to secure the landlocked region's outlet to the sea. One of the two routes, through the east, is already blocked and the other, through the west, would be threatened if the west were to break away also. But could it be kept open in a federation maintained by force? The violent disorders in the west in 1965, in protest against the northern-backed regime of Chief Akintola, suggest that it could not. If Nigeria does break up, nothing could ensure the evacuation of northern produce more effectively than a Common Services organisation. This is perhaps the best solution to the Nigerian crisis. It is the kind of arrangement the north itself proposed in July last year - and the east has been proposing since then. Now, no region would benefit more from it than the north. By insisting on war the northerners would risk destroying their own vital interests.

Inevitably, outsiders have been drawn, into the conflict. The big shipping and trading companies, who have larger interests in the north and the west than in the east, are observing the blockade. The oil companies, whose exports all originate in the east, are in a different position and may be anxious for Biafra to be recognised. Britain could hardly do this until Colonel Ojukwu's breakaway regime has proved itself firmly in control. But we should immediately make it clear to General Gowon that our only interest is in a stable solution and that war will bring this no nearer.

Thanks man.

EastGold:
Biafra failed the moment Igbo tried to extend their territory to SS and SW.

I know they will argue with me, I know some of them don't understand history.

But I have said my own.

Shut up ..igbos tried to rescue yorubas from fulanis who killed your leader and taken over your region to give u independent
Like we did to mid West

tutudesz:

Guy The Guardian newspaper was founded in 1983 So please how is possible they reported a news that happen 1967?

Don't disgrace yourself pls
Guardian is a UK newspaper ...

Liposure:
biafran soldiers captured ore. Go and read it

Biafran soldiers never captured Ore.
the incursion into the the west was led by a Yoruuba man victor banjo and the aim is to free the west of northern troops.

wirinet:

In your thinking, Biafra of 1967 included the former Mid West and Ore?

Biafra failed the day they invaded other regions. It changed their aims from secession to conquest and colonisation.

In addition
It's the same reason Biafra failed today. The Biafrans can't get their eyes off the old mid west. they are even eying Benue join.

Oga biafra gave mid West independent right ?
The plan was to free the west from Fulani and hand it over to the yorubas