Comments by "Daniel B West" (@danielbwest) on "Africa's Bloodiest Military Coup Explained I July 1966, Nigeria" video.

I don't think saying the 1st coup only targeted persons because they were in authority is an honest interpretation. The 1st coup clearly had evidence of similar ethnic strands that defined the second coup. Apart from the fact that there are tenuous explainations (at best) why Igbo and Igbo speaking politicians and military officers in the Midwest and Eastern regions were not targetted, Major Nzeogwu himself would later criticise Major Ifeajuna for failing to eliminate Ironsi. This misunderstanding that came about because Nzeogwu interperated the coup in ethnic/tribalistic terms. This view was corroborated by other officers involved that the operations in Lagos at the time.
18
@ekeneosuagwu6919 I think it all comes down to perception, both from those on the outside (the average Nigerian, you and me etc) and those taking part as I said. I just don't think it is objectively one thing or the other as you claim. There are alot of moving pieces here. At the end of the day, the coup plotters doing the country a huge disservice through their actions. The irony is the Igbos paid an even heavier price for what they did than what they would have if they did nothing. Did they deserve to? obviously not. But the cause of all the subsequent violence is rooted in much more complex factors that if Igbo's are honest with themselves, they played a part in. So I don't think Nigeria needs to apologise for anything. If we go down the route of assigning blame then who is who? Are Igbos only the victims? Are other Nigerians only perpetrators?You see where I'm going. Going down that route won't bring reconciliation, only more hatred and jealousy. All Nigerian in some level are to blame. Going forward it's important to look at all angles with nuance if Nigeria as a nation is going to be able to talk about its history in an honest manner without partisanship.
9
@ekeneosuagwu6919 This is not purely an Igbo coup fiction. As I said before, There is some circumstancial evidence that some core members of th coup plotters viewed it this way, and Ifeajuna may have been one of them. And given the ethnic partisan nature of politics at the time, it would be surprising if this was not was not the case. Others obviously did not, which unfortunately allows for an excuse for you to be in denial. I also can't answer your question what the end game could have been because you are asking a question that a rational person would ask, and these individuals were clearly not thinking rationally. They had to have known that many non Igbo (and even some Igbo) officers would never give the coup legitimacy and that this would have set a bad precident going forward. Its hard to imagine why the GOC or any other senior officer would go along with what some mid level officer's were doing.
7
@ekeneosuagwu6919 And maybe thier endgame was to make it look like they were only removing key members of the security apparatus in 'authority', while using underhand means to give Igbo or Igbo speaking officers and politicians more influence. Who knows?
5
@ekeneosuagwu6919 Well as you said what I said was speculation. You also provided some interesting context which is appreciated. It would really surprise me though if there were no examples of media outlets of using underhand instigation tactics pitting tribes against each other. Just my opinion. At the end of the day, this meritocracy you speak of definitely benefited Igbo's more than any other group in Nigeria at the time given the circumstances. We can't pretend otherwise. So it's easy for them to use this merit over nepotism an excuse to make it seem like they were doing sth for noble reasons. As you said, some Igbo's definitely believed genuinely in this meritocracy for the good of the nation. However we can't pretend it wasn't used as an excuse for other Igbo's who felt Igbo's deserved to be in positions of influence in the country more than others. Undoubtedly, some Igbo's would feel they were 'better'. This speculation is based on what has happened all over the world in history. It's really human just nature.
5
@ekeneosuagwu6919 The point is not that all Igbo's carried out the coup. The point is that majority Igbo's played a part INDIRECTLY in the events that led up to the coup. Lemme break it down for you. The cultural organisations in each region used tribal/regional nationalism to gain political power. NCNC in the 1950s in its political activism ended up intensifying ethnic identities by the time independence came around. They heavily influenced the Igbos in thier ideas of how the future Nigerian state should be run. Politicians of course would take advantage of this influence on the Igbo psyche and more of them would get seats in the Federal Assembly and in turn political power. Media outlets in the East would follow the same pattern either as a mouthpiece for the party, or just to make more sales or gain popularity. In modern times, their ideas would be considered radical ethnic partisanship. By being tribalistic and giving these politicians and journalists a platform, they in turn sowed the seeds of Igbo nationalism in the East. This undoubtedly influenced the majority of the coup plotters because when they were trying to recruit officers to their plan, it ended up being mostly Igbos and Igbo speaking officers who joined. ONE OF (not the main) the factors which influenced this had to have been the partisan messaging they were constantly being exposed to by newspapers, radio personalities and polititians. Messaging such as that the root of the country's problems were rooted in the ruling NNA Party stealing the elections in 1964, and the desire of Northerners to control the country'sGoverment, and natural resources for the benefit of the North, as well as a perception that Igbo's were being disregarded in many other important positions despite being more qualified than Northerners. There have to be numerous examples of this inflammatory language available. Now imagine you are an Igbo officer in the army with some tribalistic tendencies. It's not a huge leap from there to a scheming coup plotter if you genuinely think the country's problems are the fault of one group or the other. Thus some officers may have perceived it as anti-igbo driven which what I meant before by perception. So are you really saying the Igbo's in general don't share ANY blame at all for what ended up happening? Yes, it may have been unintended, but it still happened and it hurt them the most. That's what I mean by they played a part in (indirectly).
4
@ekeneosuagwu6919 I have to agree with our brother here. Judging by the tone of the narrator, there seems to be an inclination to put more blame on Gowon's shoulders for the Succession crisis and not as much on Ojukwu's. In fact, it really came down to a basic misunderstanding of what was agreed at Aburi bcus nothing really was actually agreed and there was alot of procrastination. Another supposedly incorrect assertion was to imply the Nigerian army fired the first shots, when in fact it started out as a police operation. I may be wrong on this point though. Anyways I feel the narrative could have presented a more balanced view of what happened.
4
@ekeneosuagwu6919 Maybe none, but you have to admit given the political climate its plausible. Remember that politically, the country was dominated by Northerners and Westerners.
3
@RealityStand everything you said I have addressed above, so please refer there. Also I think it's interesting you use the words "why WE struck", and then go on to claim it wasn't an Igbo coup. So which is which? Who's 'we'?
2
@ekeneosuagwu6919 whether or not we can interperate it as pa police action or not isn't the point here so we can call it all semantics, fine. The point is Ojukwu announced Succession BEFORE operations began. The Eastern region wasn't sovereign, so the government had the right to use whatever means to reassert control. And I think this point of sovereignty leads into my first point above in terms of what was misunderstood. The point is they might have agreed something at Aburi on paper, but subsequently, how it was implemented would cause friction because of this issue of sovereignty. In Gowon's mind, anything that the East did to infringe on the sovereignty of the Nigerian state was a breach on what was agreed. So anything that was agreed in moot if they both interperated it differently. So I think you are being very unfair in putting the blood of 3 million Igbo on his hands.
1
@ekeneosuagwu6919 As I said before, issues of sovereignty are not contingent on the implementation of any treaty unless it's contents are hitherto agreed to by the two parties. Gowon as head of state represented the interests of Nigeria as a sovereign nation. Ojukwu represented the interests of a group ( the igbo's) in name only, which in any case did not contitute a sovereign nation.
1
@ekeneosuagwu6919 Lagos is the recognised political center in Nigeria. Anytime any subsequent coup took place in the country, Lagos was the obvious first target regardless what took place in other regions. But even if I adhere to this technicality you mentioned, Gowon was still recognised by other foreign leaders as head of State. That is a huge maker of sovereignty. Was Ojukwu recognised as a leader of a STATE at Aburi? Of course not. You need recognition for you to be sovereign and considered legitimate. Remember all this occurred BEFORE Ojukwu declared succession. So Gowon would never treat with a breakaway region on the same footing as diplomatically recognised States. Doing so would give Ojukwu legitimacy. As far as he was concerned, two factions within the State were in dispute. He doesn't have to treat with them on equal footing.
1