What if Nixon Succeeded

[zraver]

Medical platoon, part of the service battalion.

That is what I assumed, just wanted to make sure.

[Doktor]

Maybe you are unaware of the Blood Telegram sent by the US consul general in Dhaka.

So the Americans knew exactly what the pakistanis were doing there. But national interest trumps all, and the Nixon admin determined that at that time the US's interests were served by supporting Yahya Khan and letting his army do what they want to the East Pakistanis. "To all hands, don’t squeeze Yahya at this time,” was in Nixon's handwritten note found when the papers of that era were declassified.

Actually, I read the blood telegram some time back. That's what makes the thing more confusing to me. The outcome was known.

It is because you have a misplaced idea of the real nature of the world order.

Could be. However, when big players make a move, it is for a reason. The risk seem so huge to me for no real incentive (tapping Khan on the shoulder).

What is also confusing to me is idealizing the deal with the Soviets. In my view this is more of a reason to sent Big-E.

[zraver]

Actually, I read the blood telegram some time back. That's what makes the thing more confusing to me. The outcome was known.


Could be. However, when big players make a move, it is for a reason. The risk seem so huge to me for no real incentive (tapping Khan on the shoulder).

What is also confusing to me is idealizing the deal with the Soviets. In my view this is more of a reason to sent Big-E.

Big-E shows the flag is just enough support to mollify Khan. A mollified Khan agrees to allow Pakistan to be used by Kissinger to fly to China. Kissinger's visit is followed by Nixon's and China becomes an American ally countering the Soviets and largely blunting the expected Soviet gain when North Vietnam ultimately wins the Vietnam war.

India doesn't even figure into the equation and the Big-E was never in danger or in range of Indian assets.

[Firestorm]

Actually, I read the blood telegram some time back. That's what makes the thing more confusing to me. The outcome was known.

Which outcome? The Blood telegram was several months before Indian intervention and only talked about atrocities. Indira Gandhi went on her tour asking for intervention or support after that. Nobody knew if or when India would intervene and what would happen if there was a war. The outcome wasn't certain at all.

Could be. However, when big players make a move, it is for a reason. The risk seem so huge to me for no real incentive (tapping Khan on the shoulder).

Zraver is right. It was more than just tapping Khan on the shoulder. Nixon and Kissinger had China in their sights and were willing to go to any extent to get them on the American side. If that meant allowing a genocide, so be it.

[Doktor]

Which outcome? The Blood telegram was several months before Indian intervention and only talked about atrocities. Indira Gandhi went on her tour asking for intervention or support after that. Nobody knew if or when India would intervene and what would happen if there was a war. The outcome wasn't certain at all.

From the page 3 of the telegram:, point 6 (excerpt):
..."i believe the most likely eventual outcome of the struggle underway in East Pakistan is a Bengali victory and the consequent establishment of an independent Bangladesh. At the moment we posses the good will of the Awami league. We would be foolish to forfeit this asset by pursuing a rigid policy of one sided support to the likely loser"

Look at the date ;)

Zraver is right. It was more than just tapping Khan on the shoulder. Nixon and Kissinger had China in their sights and were willing to go to any extent to get them on the American side. If that meant allowing a genocide, so be it.

Did Kissinger really needed Pakistan to fly to China? Are there no other routes?

[anil]

zraver, the americans didn't care? really?

The americans had given a commitment to the defence of pakistan from india. The indian politicians had figured this out through observation.

The americans were getting the chinese to intervene from the north(the chinese pointed to the russians)
The americans were asking the shah of iran(he too pointed to the russians)
They americans were talking with the jordanians, the saudis and the turks. They had moved their fighter jets to use for pakistani pilots.

For some f$%king reason, the americans were unwilling to engage unilaterally. That reason IMO, was because of the russians, the size of the indian army and the reputation of indira.

I've already shown you several examples where if the US decided to act, she did, and it was the Russians who backed down- EVERY TIME.

In war, military strength matters, it diktats strategy. Without the chinese army, the US military was severely outnumbered by the indians and the russians. Would the russians miss this opportunity?

Could be. However, when big players make a move, it is for a reason. The risk seem so huge to me for no real incentive (tapping Khan on the shoulder).

What is also confusing to me is idealizing the deal with the Soviets. In my view this is more of a reason to sent Big-E.

Doktor, concentrate on the bottom line. Had india not signed the treaty with the russians, there would have been nothing that could have stopped the cleansing in east pakistan. The toll would have raised from millions to several millions in the following years.

Indian policy makers primarily focus on a nation states psyche(what and how does it think?). The only way to know for sure is to look at its actions, its history. That settles the question.

[Officer of Engineers]

In war, military strength matters, it diktats strategy. Without the chinese army, the US military was severely outnumbered by the indians and the russians. Would the russians miss this opportunity?

The Soviets were perfectly happy fighting the Americans down to the last Korean and Chinese (Korean War) and down to the last Vietnamese. What makes you think that they wouldn't be happy fighting the Americans down to the last Indian?

[anil]

The Soviets were perfectly happy fighting the Americans down to the last Korean and Chinese (Korean War) and down to the last Vietnamese. What makes you think that they wouldn't be happy fighting the Americans down to the last Indian?

Because they could win this one :)

Indians have been fighting internecine wars before america existed and before the europeans arrived on the american continent. When russians and the US engage in threats of mutual distruction, we indians recognize patterns of familiarity.

[bolo121]

Because they could win this one :)

Indians have been fighting internecine wars before america existed and before the europeans arrived on the american continent. When russians and the US engage in threats of mutual distruction, we indians recognize patterns of familiarity.

This is delusional nutbaggery.
In the 70s we had nothing capable of reaching a CVBG

[zraver]

zraver, the americans didn't care? really?

Ya really.... Pakistani was a bit player and vassal. Europe and to an extent Japan and the Gulf oil were all that mattered.

For some f$%king reason, the americans were unwilling to engage unilaterally. That reason IMO, was because of the russians, the size of the indian army and the reputation of indira.

cookoo cookoo cookoo.... I've given you numerous other reasons that are empirically provable. The size of the India Army.... really?

In war, military strength matters, it diktats strategy. Without the chinese army, the US military was severely outnumbered by the indians and the russians. Would the russians miss this opportunity?

How many ground troops did the US employ during the Cuban Missile Crisis, in the various standoffs over Israel???? Ground troops in a naval battle, do you really believe this stuff your writing or are you just trolling?

Indian policy makers primarily focus on a nation states psyche(what and how does it think?). The only way to know for sure is to look at its actions, its history. That settles the question.

Then why oh great one are you insisting that this time, this one and only time in the History of the Cold War the Soviets would have acted differently than they did every other time when push came to shove for brown skins?

[Officer of Engineers]

Because they could win this one :)

Win what? They won Vietnam and strategically, they won the Korean War as well. In both cases, they bled the Americans to the point where the Americans don't want to bleed anymore.

And changed nothing over in Europe.

Hate to burst your dellusions but India ain't that important to Moscow. They can live and die without you.

[Blademaster]

Zraver is right. It was more than just tapping Khan on the shoulder. Nixon and Kissinger had China in their sights and were willing to go to any extent to get them on the American side. If that meant allowing a genocide, so be it.

Were they willing to lose India to get China? Did they place a higher value on China than India just because China could tie down divisions of USSR? What about granting access to Indian Ocean through Indian naval bases to USSR?

I thought USA wanted to keep USSR out of the Indian Ocean but siding with Pakistan just shot that plan to hell.

[Officer of Engineers]

Were they willing to lose India to get China?

From the links, I think both sides had came to the conclusion that India and the US were on different paths.

I thought USA wanted to keep USSR out of the Indian Ocean but siding with Pakistan just shot that plan to hell.

At the time, a reasonable assumption. The Soviets didn't have the navy to go into the Indian Ocean without depleting the Atlantic.

[anil]

Sorry zraver, I don't agree with you. And you're again repeating the same things over and over again.

The US attempt to undo bangladesh back to east pakistan was by applying pressure and intimidation on india. THESE WERE THE F$%KING OPTIONS!! Do you think that if the soviets weren't in the loop, the US would have restricted itself to these options? And to negotiate with the chinese on the side to open a front in the north asap, with the iranians, the turks and the jordanians? Shiiiiiyyytt!!

Cut the BS zraver. I won't entertain your replys anymore. Learn from you we should to take something very simple and F^&KING obvious into a spectacle of face saving arrogant rants about the size of your balls(which if you actually had, you wouldn't had to blow the chinese for a new set of balls you b#$@h now would you? HAIN?) and the awesome military hardware you had in the vicinity.

Cut the BS zraver.

Interview with Kandury Subramanvam, 1987 - WGBH Open Vault

the US administration asked China to move against India and the Chinese asked the question, "What happens if the Soviet Union moved against China?" Even though in, the United States did give some guarantees to China about that contingency China did not move. And therefore it was quite obvious that the Indian action of entering into the friendship treaty with the Soviet did succeed in restraining China from acting in spite of all the goading from the United States.

[anil]

Hate to burst your dellusions but India ain't that important to Moscow. They can live and die without you.

I do agree with you but I also believe that without their backing, we couldn't have intervened in east pakistan. Even if we did, we would have been encountered US intervention. The russian involvement forced the US to go to the chinese and to the UN(diplomacy).