Dismiss Notice
Welcome to IDF- Indian Defence Forum , register for free to join this friendly community of defence enthusiastic from around the world. Make your opinion heard and appreciated.

1971 war real story: India, Russia vs Pak, USA, UK, China

Discussion in 'International Relations' started by arun.id, Jun 5, 2013.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. arun.id

    arun.id Lieutenant SENIOR MEMBER

    Joined:
    May 9, 2013
    Messages:
    874
    Likes Received:
    296
    1971 War: How Russia sank Nixon’s gunboat diplomacy
    Indrus.in ^ | December 20, 2011 | Rakesh Krishnan Simha
    Posted on Fri Jan 20 2012 04:46:51 GMT+0530 (IST) by ravager

    Exactly 40 years ago, India won a famous victory over Pakistan due to its brilliant soldiers, an unwavering political leadership, and strong diplomatic support from Moscow. Less well known is Russia’s power play that prevented a joint British-American attack on India.

    Washington DC, December 3, 1971, 10:45am. US President Richard Nixon is on the phone with Secretary of State Henry Kissinger, hours after Pakistan launched simultaneous attacks on six Indian airfields, a reckless act that prompted India to declare war.

    Nixon: So West Pakistan giving trouble there. Kissinger: If they lose half of their country without fighting they will be destroyed. They may also be destroyed this way but they will go down fighting. Nixon: The Pakistan thing makes your heart sick. For them to be done so by the Indians and after we have warned the ********** (reference to Indian Prime Minister Indira Gandhi). Tell them that when India talks about West Pakistan attacking them it's like Russia claiming to be attacked by Finland.

    Washington, December 10, 1971, 10:51am. A week later the war is not going very well for Pakistan, as Indian armour scythes through East Pakistan and the Pakistan Air Force is blown out of the subcontinent’s sky. Meanwhile, the Pakistani military in the west is demoralised and on the verge of collapse as the Indian Army and Air Force attack round the clock.

    Nixon: Our desire is to save West Pakistan. That's all. Kissinger: That's right. That is exactly right. Nixon: All right. Keep those carriers moving now. Kissinger: The carriers—everything is moving. Four Jordanian planes have already moved to Pakistan, 22 more are coming. We're talking to the Saudis, the Turks we've now found are willing to give five. So we're going to keep that moving until there's a settlement. Nixon: Could you tell the Chinese it would be very helpful if they could move some forces or threaten to move some forces? Kissinger: Absolutely. Nixon: They've got to threaten or they've got to move, one of the two. You know what I mean? Kissinger: Yeah. Nixon: How about getting the French to sell some planes to the Paks? Kissinger: Yeah. They're already doing it. Nixon: This should have been done long ago. The Chinese have not warned the Indians. Kissinger: Oh, yeah. Nixon: All they've got to do is move something. Move a division. You know, move some trucks. Fly some planes. You know, some symbolic act. We're not doing a goddamn thing, Henry, you know that. Kissinger: Yeah. Nixon: But these Indians are cowards. Right? Kissinger: Right. But with Russian backing. You see, the Russians have sent notes to Iran, Turkey, to a lot of countries threatening them. The Russians have played a miserable game.

    If the two American leaders were calling Indians cowards, a few months earlier the Indians were a different breed altogether. This phone call is from May 1971. Nixon: The Indians need—what they need really is a— Kissinger: They’re such bastards. Nixon: A mass famine. But they aren't going to get that…But if they're not going to have a famine the last thing they need is another war. Let the goddamn Indians fight a war. Kissinger: They are the most aggressive goddamn people around there.

    The 1971 war is considered to be modern India’s finest hour, in military terms. The clinical professionalism of the Indian army, navy and air force; a charismatic brass led by the legendary Sam Maneckshaw; and ceaseless international lobbying by the political leadership worked brilliantly to set up a famous victory. After two weeks of vicious land, air and sea battles, nearly 100,000 Pakistani soldiers surrendered before India's rampaging army, the largest such capitulation since General Paulus' surrender at Stalingrad in 1943. However, it could all have come unstuck without help from veto-wielding Moscow, with which New Delhi had the foresight to sign a security treaty in 1970.

    As Nixon’s conversations with the wily Kissinger show, the forces arrayed against India were formidable. The Pakistani military was being bolstered by aircraft from Jordan, Iran, Turkey and France. Moral and military support was amply provided by the US, China and the UK. Though not mentioned in the conversations here, the UAE sent in half a squadron of fighter aircraft and the Indonesians dispatched at least one naval vessel to fight alongside the Pakistani Navy.

    However, Russia’s entry thwarted a scenario that could have led to multiple pincer movements against India.

    Superpowers face-off

    On December 10, even as Nixon and Kissinger were frothing at the mouth, Indian intelligence intercepted an American message, indicating that the US Seventh Fleet was steaming into the war zone. The Seventh Fleet, which was then stationed in the Gulf of Tonkin, was led by the 75,000 ton nuclear powered aircraft carrier, the USS Enterprise. The world’s largest warship, it carried more than 70 fighters and bombers. The Seventh Fleet also included the guided missile cruiser USS King, guided missile destroyers USS Decatur, Parsons and Tartar Sam, and a large amphibious assault ship USS Tripoli.

    Standing between the Indian cities and the American ships was the Indian Navy’s Eastern Fleet led by the 20,000-ton aircraft carrier, Vikrant, with barely 20 light fighter aircraft. When asked if India’s Eastern Fleet would take on the Seventh Fleet, the Flag Officer Commanding-in-Chief, Vice Admiral N. Krishnan, said: “Just give us the orders.†The Indian Air Force, having wiped out the Pakistani Air Force within the first week of the war, was reported to be on alert for any possible intervention by aircraft from the Enterprise.

    Meanwhile, Soviet intelligence reported that a British naval group led by the aircraft carrier Eagle had moved closer to India’s territorial waters. This was perhaps one of the most ironic events in modern history where the Western world’s two leading democracies were threatening the world’s largest democracy in order to protect the perpetrators of the largest genocide since the Holocaust in Nazi Germany. However, India did not panic. It quietly sent Moscow a request to activate a secret provision of the Indo-Soviet security treaty, under which Russia was bound to defend India in case of any external aggression.

    The British and the Americans had planned a coordinated pincer to intimidate India: while the British ships in the Arabian Sea would target India’s western coast, the Americans would make a dash into the Bay of Bengal in the east where 100,000 Pakistani troops were caught between the advancing Indian troops and the sea.

    To counter this two-pronged British-American threat, Russia dispatched a nuclear-armed flotilla from Vladivostok on December 13 under the overall command of Admiral Vladimir Kruglyakov, the Commander of the 10th Operative Battle Group (Pacific Fleet). Though the Russian fleet comprised a good number of nuclear-armed ships and atomic submarines, their missiles were of limited range (less than 300 km). Hence to effectively counter the British and American fleets the Russian commanders had to undertake the risk of encircling them to bring them within their target. This they did with military precision.

    In an interview to a Russian TV programme after his retirement, Admiral Kruglyakov, who commanded the Pacific Fleet from 1970 to 1975, recalled that Moscow ordered the Russian ships to prevent the Americans and British from getting closer to “Indian military objectsâ€. The genial Kruglyakov added: “The Chief Commander’s order was that our submarines should surface when the Americans appear. It was done to demonstrate to them that we had nuclear submarines in the Indian Ocean. So when our subs surfaced, they recognised us. In the way of the American Navy stood the Soviet cruisers, destroyers and atomic submarines equipped with anti-ship missiles. We encircled them and trained our missiles at the Enterprise. We blocked them and did not allow them to close in on Karachi, Chittagong or Dhaka."

    At this point, the Russians intercepted a communication from the commander of the British carrier battle group, Admiral Dimon Gordon, to the Seventh Fleet commander: “Sir, we are too late. There are the Russian atomic submarines here, and a big collection of battleships.†The British ships fled towards Madagascar while the larger US task force stopped before entering the Bay of Bengal.

    The Russian manoeuvres clearly helped prevent a direct clash between India and the US-UK combine. Newly declassified documents reveal that the Indian Prime Minister went ahead with her plan to liberate Bangladesh despite inputs that the Americans had kept three battalions of Marines on standby to deter India, and that the American aircraft carrier USS Enterprise had orders to target the Indian Army, which had broken through the Pakistani Army’s defences and was thundering down the highway to the gates of Lahore, West Pakistan’s second largest city.

    According to a six-page note prepared by India's foreign ministry, "The bomber force aboard the Enterprise had the US President's authority to undertake bombing of the Indian Army's communications, if necessary."

    China in the box

    Despite Kissinger’s goading and desperate Pakistani calls for help, the Chinese did nothing. US diplomatic documents reveal that Indira Gandhi knew the Soviets had factored in the possibility of Chinese intervention. According to a cable referring to an Indian cabinet meeting held on December 10, “If the Chinese were to become directly involved in the conflict, Indira Gandhi said, the Chinese know that the Soviet Union would act in the Sinkiang region. Soviet air support may be made available to India at that time.â€

    Interestingly, while the cable is declassified, the source and extensive details of the Indian Prime Minister’s briefing remain classified. “He is a reliable source†is all that the document says. There was very clearly a cabinet level mole the Americans were getting their information from.

    Intolerable hatred

    On December 14, General A.A.K. Niazi, Pakistan's military commander in East Pakistan, told the American consul-general in Dhaka that he was willing to surrender. The message was relayed to Washington, but it took the US 19 hours to relay it to New Delhi. Files suggest senior Indian diplomats suspected the delay was because Washington was possibly contemplating military action against India.

    Kissinger went so far as to call the crisis “our Rhineland†a reference to Hitler’s militarisation of German Rhineland at the outset of World War II. This kind of powerful imagery indicates how strongly Kissinger and Nixon came to see Indians as a threat.

    An Indian University study of the conflict says: “The violation of human rights on a massive scale—described in a March 30 US cable as “selective genocideâ€â€”and the complete disregard for democracy were irrelevant to Nixon and Kissinger. In fact, the non-democratic aspects of Pakistani dictator Yahya Khan’s behaviour seemed to be what impressed them the most. As evidence mounted of military atrocities in East Pakistan, Nixon and Kissinger remained unmoved. In a Senior Review Group meeting, Kissinger commented at news of significant casualties at a university that, ‘The British didn’t dominate 400 million Indians all those years by being gentle’.â€

    Nixon and Kissinger phoned Soviet President Leonid Brezhnev and asked for guarantees that India would not attack West Pakistan. “Nixon was ready to link the future summit in Moscow to Soviet behaviour on this issue," writes professor Vladislav M. Zubok in A Failed Empire. "The Soviets could not see why the White House supported Pakistan, who they believed had started the war against India. Brezhnev, puzzled at first, was soon enraged. In his narrow circle, he even suggested giving India the secret of the atomic bomb. His advisers did their best to kill this idea. Several years later, Brezhnev still reacted angrily and spoke spitefully about American behaviour."

    Cold Warriors

    Another telephone conversation between the scheming duo reveals a lot about the mindset of those at the highest echelons of American decision making: Kissinger: And the point you made yesterday, we have to continue to squeeze the Indians even when this thing is settled. Nixon: We've got to for rehabilitation. I mean, Jesus Christ, they've bombed—I want all the war damage; I want to help Pakistan on the war damage in Karachi and other areas, see? Kissinger: Yeah Nixon: I don't want the Indians to be happy. I want a public relations programme developed to piss on the Indians. Kissinger: Yeah. Nixon: I want to piss on them for their responsibility. Get a white paper out. Put down, White paper. White paper. Understand that? Kissinger: Oh, yeah. Nixon: I don't mean for just your reading. But a white paper on this. Kissinger: No, no. I know. Nixon: I want the Indians blamed for this, you know what I mean? We can't let these goddamn, sanctimonious Indians get away with this. They've pissed on us on Vietnam for 5 years, Henry. Kissinger: Yeah. Nixon: Aren't the Indians killing a lot of these people? Kissinger: Well, we don't know the facts yet. But I'm sure they're not as stupid as the West Pakistanis—they don't let the press in. The idiot Paks have the press all over their place.

    TOPICS: History; Military/Veterans
    KEYWORDS: idiotsonfr; india; pakistan; russia

    1 posted on Fri Jan 20 2012 04:46:55 GMT+0530 (IST) by ravager
    [ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]
    To: ravager
    Kissinger is one of the most overrated historical figures. His policy was gobbledygook, and he didn’t achieve one thing diplomatically. What’s that you say, the China Thaw? What, like they weren’t going to go on roughhousing Russia without us? Or as if we wouldn’t buy their stuff on the open market once they veered capitalist without making a show of recognizing them?


    2 posted on Fri Jan 20 2012 04:57:48 GMT+0530 (IST) by Tublecane
    [ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]
    To: ravager
    In hindsight, it’s a good thing that Nixon and Kissinger failed.

    The problem was that Indira Gandhi chose, for whatever reason, to side with the USSR, perhaps in part because of the Chinese threat to India’s northern borders, perhaps in part from lingering resentment of the British colonization. That pretty much forced the U.S. to side with Pakistan in response, even though it is clear that India is a far more civilized country with far more in common with us than Pakistan.

    Indira Ghandi appointed herself as leader of the “Third World†in the UN. The first and second worlds were the U.S. and Europe vs Russia and the Communist states. But in most instances, Indira Ghandi stood with the USSR, and persuaded numerous other third world countries to stand with her and vote in the UN against U.S. interests.

    So, the Nixon-Kissinger policy is understandable—if regretable. We sided with Pakistan because (as I thought at the time) second best was the only choice we were offered.


    3 posted on Fri Jan 20 2012 04:59:01 GMT+0530 (IST) by Cicero (Marcus Tullius)
    [ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]
    To: Cicero
    I’ve no idea what you are talking about. There’s no reason whatsoever that we couldn’t have just minded our own damn business on this and just do nothing. Who the hell cares if india kicks pakistan’s butt?

    pure idiocy


    4 posted on Fri Jan 20 2012 05:16:00 GMT+0530 (IST) by mamelukesabre
    [ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]
    To: Cicero
    The Russians supplied India with armaments when America refused to sell them, and even forced Britain to stop such sales - one of the Soviet premiers famously gave India’s Nehru tours of Russian aircraft factories with promises of supplying India with the latest of Russian weaponry - at a time when the West refused to entertain any such efforts. If I recall correctly, that was what irked India enough to cause the tilt, although no basing rights were given to the Russians by India.

    The American bet was on a religiously “cohesive†Pakistan to survive over the long term, in comparison with what was thought to be a very unstable, secular India. On top of that, the Russians quite early on shored up support for India in booting out French and Portuguese territorial claims from within her territory - especially Goa.

    Things turned out quite differently, for all parties, through the years. India, no doubt, acted in India’s interests and stuck with it.

    As for India itself, the Nehru-Gandhis were extremely close with Britain all through the time.


    5 posted on Fri Jan 20 2012 05:17:42 GMT+0530 (IST) by James C. Bennett (An Australian.)
    [ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]
    To: Cicero
    You are totally wrong. Indira Gandhi first came to power in 1966. By then, US-Pakistan military alliance was well established. Pakistan was part of SEATO and CENTO in 1954-55. US supported Pakistan in the 1965 Indo-Pak war, one year before Indira Gandhi came to power. And Indira Gandhi didnt appointed herself as leader of the “Third Worldâ€. India was the founder member of NAM and being the largest democracy India was the most influential among the post colonization, newly independent third world countries.
    You need to do a little more research before piling it all on Indira Gandhi. US never considered India to be best choice back then. Pakistan-China seemed much better choice .

    6 posted on Fri Jan 20 2012 05:21:22 GMT+0530 (IST) by ravager
    [ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]
    To: ravager
    Ping for later


    7 posted on Fri Jan 20 2012 05:22:10 GMT+0530 (IST) by Chainmail
    [ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]
    To: ravager
    Ping for later


    8 posted on Fri Jan 20 2012 05:22:28 GMT+0530 (IST) by Chainmail
    [ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]
    To: Cicero
    Not for whatever reason. The administrations before Nixon also sided with Islamic Republic of Pakistan. I think we should curb this penchant of trying to justify every action using some moral argument. Why not admit mistakes and realize that we have no business interfering in other countries.

    The most foolish policy was to arm Osama bin Laden. Don’t give me the line about fighting Soviets because (a) it is insulting to the soldiers when you claim that American soldiers are all incompetent and so we need to go seek the help of some camel rider to save us, (b) it is still immoral to support Taliban and the terrorists and arm them, and (c) you imply that 9/11 attacks were justified because it was some sort of collateral damage that occurred as a result of fighting the Soviets.


    9 posted on Fri Jan 20 2012 05:27:23 GMT+0530 (IST) by JimWayne
    [ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]
    To: ravager
    The US (Nixon) had tried to provoke the Chinese into attacking India in 1971, too, while the Bangladeshi people (especially the non-Muslims there) were being mowed down and slaughtered whole-scale by the Pakistani military (with US equipment and support - they even coaxed their Middle East friends to supply weaponry to Pakistan) under Operation Searchlight. The Russians neutralised both Chinese AND American threats (USS Enterprise was moved into the Bay of Bengal, to be quickly trailed by a Russian nuke sub) and only a total dimwit unaware of history would call india’s alliance with them a folly for India:

    Operation Searchlight - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


    10 posted on Fri Jan 20 2012 05:30:14 GMT+0530 (IST) by James C. Bennett (An Australian.)
    [ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]
    To: ravager
    I never got the impression that US diplomacy in SW Asia was ever well thought-out. Besides everything was seen through the prism of the Cold War struggle with the Soviets. It was as if everything was a zero-sum game.


    11 posted on Fri Jan 20 2012 05:38:15 GMT+0530 (IST) by Tallguy (It's all 'Fun and Games' until somebody loses an eye!)
    [ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]
    To: Tublecane
    Kissinger is one of the most overrated historical figures. His policy was gobbledygook, and he didn’t achieve one thing diplomatically. What’s that you say, the China Thaw? What, like they weren’t going to go on roughhousing Russia without us? Or as if we wouldn’t buy their stuff on the open market once they veered capitalist without making a show of recognizing them?

    About Kissinger - yeah, the guy was an unabashed lover of mass murderers. Read Kissinger's "White House Years" memoirs sometime - the affection he has for the likes of Pakistani military dictator Yahya Khan is cringe-inducing, and the outright adoration Kissinger expresses for Mao Zedong is beyond belief. Yahya Khan and Mao both had death counts measured in the millions.

    There's no question the US backed the wrong dog in the fight between India and Pakistan - the world would probably be a better place today if India had been allowed to complete it's disintegration of Pakistan back then. But it wasn't all one-sided. Nehru was a Fabian socialist who spurned overtures from the US and his alignment with the Soviet Union while posing as a neutralist made a mockery of his credibility and hurt India both economically and geo-politically for decades. His daughter Indira Gandhi continued his policies.
    12 posted on Fri Jan 20 2012 05:55:27 GMT+0530 (IST) by AnotherUnixGeek
    [ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]
    To: Cicero
    Times and alliances change. India was on the side of the Soviets, while preaching "non-alignment", more or less continuously from Independence and the breakup with what became Pakistan until the assassination of "the **********", as Nixon apparently called Indira Ghandi (in many ways an apt description). The US and what we used to call "Red China" were on the Pakistani side. The "Great Game" of South Asia has been going on for more than two hundred years now. The names of the countries change, the leaders change, and they even change sides in the game. But it never really stops.
    At that time Pakistan had a pro-western government run behind the scenes and sometimes overtly by their military. It was smaller but richer and more "advanced" by far than Socialist India and the Islamic element were kept in their mosques. That ALL changed in 1979 when the Soviets invaded Afghanistan (long recognized like Mongolia as a backwater part of their "sphere of influence"). While we had already (thanks, again, Jimmy, you worthless POS) lost our greatest ally in the region besides Israel (Iran) we assisted the Afghan Mujahadeen (Holy Warriors) with pakistani cooperation and Saudi money in resisting the Soviets trying, successfully in the end, to give Russia a Viet Nam of her very own and offset what looked like a Soviet march to warm water and oil.

    Then the madrassas in Pakistan released their tens of thousands of young indoctrinated "scholars" ("Taliban") across the border to overthrow what was left of a Russian puppet government, they won all but a small fraction of the country, instituted a reign of religious terror that made China's Cultural or the French revolution look benign, nurtured and supported a rich Saudi who had fought with them through the Soviet years by the name of Osama bin Laden, and the rest as they say is history.

    13 posted on Fri Jan 20 2012 05:57:27 GMT+0530 (IST) by katana (Just my opinions)
    [ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]
    To: ravager
    I have a few bones to pick with this article.

    First off, it must be noted that the Nixon administration had a stake in preserving the integrity of Pakistan, longtime US ally during the Cold War that Nixon was using Pakistan as a go-between in its ongoing secret diplomacy with China.

    In 1971, Nixon and Kissinger feared that India would use the Bengali revolt in East Pakistan as a pretext to “destroy†Pakistan. Furthermore, India abandoned its longstanding policy of “nonalignment†and became a Soviet ally when it signed the Indo-Soviet Treaty of “Peace, Friendship and Cooperation†in 1971—not 1970, as the article states. Shortly thereafter, Soviet armaments began pouring into India.

    The writer also doesn’t mention the fact that the Nixon administration was trying to solve the conflict between the Pakistani government and the Bengalis by pressuring Islamabad to grant sweeping concessions to East Pakistan that would have eventually led to its independence. The Nixon administration also tried to get the Indians and Pakistanis to agree to a troop withdrawal from their borders and offered to have the US assume responsibility for the millions of Bengali refugees that were pouring into India, but got no response from India’s premier Indira Gandhi.

    The article implies that the Soviet navy successfully faced down the US naval force, an eight-ship fleet known as Task Group 74. However, in no accounts of the conflict have I read of a naval face-of, and the message from the British commander to the US commander that the Soviets had arrived with a “fleet of battleships†sounds bogus, because the Soviet navy had no battleships.

    In any case, when the war ended with West Pakistan intact, Kissinger remarked to Nixon, “Congratulations, Mr. President. You saved West Pakistan.â€


    14 posted on Fri Jan 20 2012 06:01:13 GMT+0530 (IST) by Fiji Hill
    [ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]
    To: ravager
    Everything then was seen through a Cold War lens. India was seen as favoring the Soviets, and that was enough. Even at that, though, I saw it as very wrong when we sided against India when they liberated Bangla Desh.

    I’m glad those days are done. One of the things Bush seemed to focus on was building a real alliance with India, and India has been valuable in the good-cop-bad-cop diplomacy with Pakistan the last few years.

    We need to continue to build on the natural affinity we have for one another.


    15 posted on Fri Jan 20 2012 06:06:24 GMT+0530 (IST) by marron
    [ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]
    To: ravager
    This article appears to be a psy-ops propaganda piece generated in a Russian intelligence group using alleged Indian writers dedicated to kissing up to Indians to keep them aligned with Russia.
    The Russian military-industrial complex and/or elements of the Indian industrial complex that subcontracts building Russian arms is in desperate competition with the US now that Russian arms are increasingly obsolete relative to US/UK/French/Israeli offerings to the Russians.

    The article makes out the Soviets to be such wonderful friends of the Indians and invites Indians to view today's Russians in the same light.

    The article available at the same link to how Chuck Yeager's personal plane got shot up by the Indians during the last Indo-Pak war was very interesting and a clear anti-US propaganda piece:

    “How India brought down the US’ supersonic manâ€

    How India brought down the US? supersonic man | Russia & India Report

    See also propaganda piece of Australia's new Darwin outpost for US troops:

    “Australia’s Darwinian blunderâ€

    December 13, 2011
    Rakesh Krishnan Simha, specially for RIR

    “Australia’s decision to host a permanent US military presence in the northern city of Darwin is likely to spark a fierce arms race in the Asia-Pacific region.â€

    16 posted on Fri Jan 20 2012 07:04:13 GMT+0530 (IST) by Seizethecarp
    [ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]
    To: Seizethecarp
    “This article appears to be a psy-ops propaganda piece generated in a Russian intelligence group using alleged Indian writers dedicated to kissing up to Indians to keep them aligned with Russia.â€
    A propaganda by definition implies deliberate spreading of false information, doctrines, rumors etc for a political purpose. Is there anything in THIS article that is false information? Surely it cant be a propaganda only because you don't like opinions expressed can it? As far as I know, the facts presented in this article is absolutely 100% correct.

    Yes this article does makes the Soviets to be wonderful friends of Indians, which they were. You think that isn't true?

    “The Russian military-industrial complex and/or elements of the Indian industrial complex that subcontracts building Russian arms is in desperate competition with the US now that Russian arms are increasingly obsolete relative to US/UK/French/Israeli offerings to the Russians.â€

    India has arms deals with Russia today far more then anytime in all of cold war history with Soviet/Russia. India has several multi-billion dollar arms deal that includes stealth fighter jets, aircraft carrier, nuclear subs, stealth destroyers, naval fighters jets, medium transport jets, AWACS, aerial refuelers, and hundreds of tanks and fighter upgrade programs. In comparison India's arms purchase from US amounts to only a few transport jets and maritime surveillance planes. That doesn't sound like "desperate competition" to me.

    I also read the article on Chuck Yeager. All I can say is its bang on the buck.

    17 posted on Fri Jan 20 2012 08:35:57 GMT+0530 (IST) by ravager
    [ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]
    To: JimWayne
    The most foolish policy was to arm Osama bin Laden. Don’t give me the line about fighting Soviets because (a) it is insulting to the soldiers when you claim that American soldiers are all incompetent and so we need to go seek the help of some camel rider to save us, (b) it is still immoral to support Taliban and the terrorists and arm them, and (c) you imply that 9/11 attacks were justified because it was some sort of collateral damage that occurred as a result of fighting the Soviets.
    Don't talk about foolish policies until you know basic facts. The Taliban did not exist until 1991, 3 years after the Soviets left Afghanistan. The US did not ever fund or arm Osama Bin Laden. Bin Laden took over Maktab al-Khidamat, which was an Arab organization funded by Gulf State Arabs like its former money man, OBL. The US funded native Afghans.
    18 posted on Fri Jan 20 2012 08:48:56 GMT+0530 (IST) by rmlew ("Mosques are our barracks, minarets our bayonets, domes our helmets, the believers our soldiers.")
    [ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]
    To: ravager
    The problem with this article is the flagrand SPIN.
    And the Russian equipment you mention...

    “India has arms deals with Russia today far more then anytime in all of cold war history with Soviet/Russia. India has several multi-billion dollar arms deal that includes stealth fighter jets, aircraft carrier, nuclear subs, stealth destroyers, naval fighters jets, medium transport jets, AWACS, aerial refuelers, and hundreds of tanks and fighter upgrade programs.â€

    ...it is all Soviet era crap barely updated.

    If the Indians are going to confront the new Chinese weapons R&D (which is now far in excess of the Russians) they are going to need non-Russian Western arms.

    China is building a gigantic naval base in Pakistan at Gwadar and Pakistan and China are trying to encircle India.

    Consistent the the newly emerging US-India strategic alignment of interests India recently attended a conference with the US, Australia, Japan and the other nations threatened by China's aggressive territorial claims in the South China Sea for a friendly chat...prompting the anti-Australian Darwin US outpost article on this website.

    19 posted on Fri Jan 20 2012 10:07:45 GMT+0530 (IST) by Seizethecarp
    [ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]
    To: Seizethecarp
    Russian Equipment are craps ????

    >Are you talking about SU 30 MKI and other versions (4++) Jet that even US and her allies feared the most .

    >Aint am right that US provided the most updated fighter Jets and Equpiment to pakistan against India bt still they been defeated within 14 days ,not to mention other 3 wars.

    > Chinese Weapons are still decades behind Russian so called Junk ,all they do is Copy Paste things which is yet to be tested in real war unlike russian Junks.

    > India is happy with russian junk atleast there are no aatached string and they work fine in WAR.


    20 posted on Fri Jan 20 2012 11:01:32 GMT+0530 (IST) by MBT ARJUN
    [ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]
    To: MBT ARJUN
    See:
    Indian MRCA competition - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

    The Indian Air Force Medium Multi-Role Combat Aircraft (MMRCA) Competition, also known as the MRCA tender, is an ongoing competition to supply 126 multi-role combat aircraft to the Indian Air Force (IAF). The Defence Ministry has allocated 42,000 crore (US$7.98 billion) for the purchase of these aircraft,[1] making it India's single largest defence deal.[2] The MRCA tender was floated with the idea of filling the gap between its future Light Combat Aircraft and its in-service Su-30MKIs air superiority fighter.

    Procurement of the aircraft and equipment are to be carried out in accordance with the procedures laid out in the Defence Procurement Procedure (DPP)-2011. The DPP provides for a comprehensive technical and field evaluation of equipment being procured to ensure conformity with the Service Qualitative Requirements (SQRs). The DPP also stipulates standard terms of contract to ensure product and maintenance support of the equipment being procured.

    On 27 April 2011, the IAF shortlisted two of the six competing fighter jets—Eurofighter Typhoon and Dassault Rafale.[3] Bids for the two remaining competitors had been received in 2011. A total cost is being determined for each bid.

    The Indian Air Force Bharatiya Vayu Sena) is the air-arm of the Armed Forces of India and has the primary responsibility of conducting aerial warfare, defending the Indian airspace, conducting strategic strikes inside enemy territory and providing aerial cover to ground troops. It is the fourth largest air force in the world, with a strength of more than 2000 aircraft, including more than 900 combat aircraft and 305 helicopters,[4] and presently operates a total of 34 squadrons.[5]

    Most of the IAF's 797 fighter jets are of Soviet/Russian origin. These include the India's indigenous HAL Tejas (LCA), Russian Mikoyan-Gurevich MiG-21, MiG-27, MiG-29 as well as the Sukhoi Su-30MKI. Added to these are the Anglo-French SEPECAT Jaguar and French Mirage 2000 aircraft, produced under license.

    The MiG-21 forms the backbone of the IAF and more than 200 of this type are in operation. These aircraft were acquired in the late 1960s and early '70s, and performed well in the 1971 Indo-Pakistan War. However, they have been aging, and have mostly become obsolete. Added to that is a poor safety record, which has made their replacement paramount for the Indian Air Force.

    21 posted on Fri Jan 20 2012 12:22:10 GMT+0530 (IST) by Seizethecarp
    [ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]
    To: rmlew
    >>>>>>>>>Don’t talk about foolish policies until you know basic facts. The Taliban did not exist until 1991, 3 years after the Soviets left Afghanistan. The US did not ever fund or arm Osama Bin Laden. Bin Laden took over Maktab al-Khidamat, which was an Arab organization funded by Gulf State Arabs like its former money man, OBL. The US funded native Afghans.>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

    You can call them Taliban or not it won’t change.

    Afghan rebels were that same nasty people.

    They fought ‘Perchami’ and Russians not because of distinguished freedom loving but because they removed rags from womens’ faces and sent girls to colleges.

    Nation, freedom, liberty weren’t behind resistance for 99% fighters.


    22 posted on Fri Jan 20 2012 12:34:00 GMT+0530 (IST) by cunning_fish
    [ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]
    To: cunning_fish
    If you don’t know what the different groups were, how can you possibly know what was in their hearts? We are talking about different ethnic groups and sects here: Pashtuns, Tajik, Hazara...


    23 posted on Fri Jan 20 2012 12:58:47 GMT+0530 (IST) by rmlew ("Mosques are our barracks, minarets our bayonets, domes our helmets, the believers our soldiers.")
    [ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]
    To: Seizethecarp
    “The problem with this article is the flagrand SPIN.â€
    Can you explain what part of the article is “flagarand SPIN� And what exactly is “flagarand� So far you have only loosely thrown out words like “propaganda†and “spin†without explaining how or why. As I said before, surely it cant be a propaganda only because you disagree with it. Why don't you tell us what is your take on 1971 India-Pakistan war?

    “And the Russian equipment you mention...
    ...it is all Soviet era crap barely updated.â€

    Wait. Hold it right there. You said this “propaganda†article was written only to bolster Russian arms sale because they are facing desperate competition. And my response was they are still very much in business....and your response is....oh but their weapons are all crap! Do you realize how ridiculous you sound? They maybe crap but Indians are still buying it. So how does it matter if its crap?

    And surely a nicely written “propaganda†piece would be enough to kiss upto Indians and have them buy more arms no? Because obviously Indians have no intelligence of their own to tell for themselves what happened in 1971 war right? /s

    As for Russian weapons. They are not crap, not even close. Secondly, even if American weapons are 100 times better, if they are not on sale to India then it doesn't matter how good they are. Thirdly Indians have beaten Pakistan (which used American weapons)in 4 wars, using Russian weapons. I believe Indians are sufficiently intelligent enough to tell whats crap and whats not.

    “the new Chinese weapons R&D (which is now far in excess of the Russiansâ€

    No, they are not. Chinese fighter gets are still using Russian engines. They still rely heavily on Russia for technology. I would say Indian technology is on par with the Chinese. The Indians have built more or less everything the Chinese have been able to build thus far.

    24 posted on Fri Jan 20 2012 13:00:29 GMT+0530 (IST) by ravager
    [ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]
    To: Seizethecarp
    So it clearly mentioned that According to IAF ,they even rejected US SUPA DUPA aircrafts along with russian Junks..


    25 posted on Fri Jan 20 2012 13:04:08 GMT+0530 (IST) by MBT ARJUN
    [ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]
    To: rmlew; JimWayne
    “The US did not ever fund or arm Osama Bin Laden. ......The US funded native Afghans.â€
    US funded the Pakistan government and ISI. And the ISI funded whatever side they wanted to fund in Afghanistan.

    26 posted on Fri Jan 20 2012 13:18:06 GMT+0530 (IST) by ravager
    [ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]
    To: Seizethecarp
    The American fighters on offer the F-16s and F-18s were just as crappy as the Russian Mig 35 and were rejected. There you go!
    27 posted on Fri Jan 20 2012 13:20:53 GMT+0530 (IST) by ravager
    [ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]
    To: rmlew
    >>>>>>>>If you don’t know what the different groups were, how can you possibly know what was in their hearts? We are talking about different ethnic groups and sects here: Pashtuns, Tajik, Hazara...>>>>>>>>>>>

    I have an idea on Afghani divercity.

    That ethnic division is one of many reasons making the place a pot of snakes.

    Still have no idea if it has something with a topic.

    As it always happens in a poor muslim country the most radical group is to take an upper hand, so I won’t buy an idea if there could be something “moderate†instead of Taliban.

    Soviet softcore communism was good for a society like that, being very unfriendly to religious extremes, and it wasn’t good to counter it supporting these groups later developed into Taliban.

    Reds could have washed their brains from militant islamist crap to fail later like communists did worldwide leaving Afghanistan quite a peaceful post-Soviet craphole in a class of Tajikistan or something.


    28 posted on Fri Jan 20 2012 13:26:14 GMT+0530 (IST) by cunning_fish
    [ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]
    To: ravager
    Today’s Russia is not Soviet Union. India is better off allying itself to the West with whom we share far more in common values, aspirations and world-view than we do with Mafia-run Russia. In fact, I feel that the common Russian people are also better off aligning themselves with the West than the Putinistas who run a fascist regime out there.

    While the article may not be “falseâ€, it is still propaganda trying to remind Indians of the good old days of friendship with the Soviet Union when all Russia does to India today is (proverbially) hide substandard goods under shiny boxes (Gorshkov).

    Our permanent interests align better today with American ones than with Russian ones.


    29 posted on Fri Jan 20 2012 16:27:51 GMT+0530 (IST) by MimirsWell (Pganini, cmdjing, andyahoo, artaxerces, todd_hall, EdisonOne - counting my Chicom scalps)
    [ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]
    To: rmlew
    I am not claiming that the Taliban existed before 1991. I am familiar with the timeline and history of the area. I just grouped them together in one point to say that it is immoral to support terrorists for whatever reason.

    No matter how you spin it, that was an insult to the troops as well as an immoral act.


    30 posted on Fri Jan 20 2012 21:13:03 GMT+0530 (IST) by JimWayne
    [ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]
    To: Cicero
    “Indira Gandhi chose, for whatever reason, to side with the USSRâ€

    The reason was the same one every other “Third World†leader played both sides against the middle, and why today they all protest poverty: to get free stuff.


    31 posted on Sat Jan 21 2012 03:22:17 GMT+0530 (IST) by Tublecane
    [ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]
    To: JimWayne
    “The most foolish policy was to arm Osama bin Ladenâ€

    We’ve done a lot of stupid stuff. But if there was any evidence the U.S. directly helped Bin Laden, believe me, it’d be more famous than the Bay of Pigs. The MSM would have been shouting it from the rooftops for the last decade.

    That you seem to think we did derives from the power of suggestion merely. We armed the mujahadeen, not Bin Laden.


    32 posted on Sat Jan 21 2012 03:27:55 GMT+0530 (IST) by Tublecane
    [ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]
    To: cunning_fish
    The last Shah, Mohammed Zahir Shah, was a Pashtun just like the Taliban. However, he introduced a parliament, civil rights for women, and universal suffrage.
     
    2 people like this.
  2. arun.id

    arun.id Lieutenant SENIOR MEMBER

    Joined:
    May 9, 2013
    Messages:
    874
    Likes Received:
    296
    Please make this thread sticky. it's very important that people get this story straight.
     
  3. Himanshu Pandey

    Himanshu Pandey Don't get mad, get even. STAR MEMBER

    Joined:
    Jul 21, 2011
    Messages:
    10,210
    Likes Received:
    4,220
    Country Flag:
    India
    there are several threads on 1971... if somebody can find them all... I will merge them and will make it sticky
     
  4. brahmos_ii

    brahmos_ii Major SENIOR MEMBER

    Joined:
    Oct 19, 2012
    Messages:
    3,791
    Likes Received:
    954
  5. Averageamerican

    Averageamerican Colonel ELITE MEMBER

    Joined:
    Oct 3, 2010
    Messages:
    15,359
    Likes Received:
    2,378
    Country Flag:
    United States
  6. arun.id

    arun.id Lieutenant SENIOR MEMBER

    Joined:
    May 9, 2013
    Messages:
    874
    Likes Received:
    296
  7. Averageamerican

    Averageamerican Colonel ELITE MEMBER

    Joined:
    Oct 3, 2010
    Messages:
    15,359
    Likes Received:
    2,378
    Country Flag:
    United States
    Remember that the President is not the goverment of the USA its just one of three branchs of the government and the government is not the people of the USA.
     
  8. omya

    omya Lt. Colonel ELITE MEMBER

    Joined:
    Jan 27, 2013
    Messages:
    7,557
    Likes Received:
    3,828
    Country Flag:
    India
    this always makes me cry :yey:
     
  9. layman

    layman Aurignacian STAR MEMBER

    Joined:
    May 1, 2012
    Messages:
    11,024
    Likes Received:
    3,042
    Country Flag:
    United States
    THis old history has been discussed long and hard by all of us in other threads. What is the need for this thread. It is a archive of history.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page