Somebody just lost the plot.
Announcement
Collapse
No announcement yet.
What if Nixon Succeeded
Collapse
X
-
Originally posted by anil View PostSorry 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$%KING OPTIONS!! Do you think that if the soviets weren't in the loop, the US would have restricted itself to these options? And to negotiate with the chinese on the side to open a front in the north asap, with the iranians, the turks and the jordanians? Shiiiiiyyytt!!
Had the US cared, she would have acted earlier and India would have backed down. The Indian air force did not have enough modern super sonic fighters to defend both borders with Pakistan and both coasts. She did not have enough strike bombers or naval power to menace the USN. Her army still mostly equipped as a WWII era organization would not dare go east with no hope of secure supply lines under US dominated skies. And make no mistake those skies would be US dominated. India would not even contest them lest she use up all of her best fighters for no gain and leave herself at the mercy of Pakistani F-104's (then believed to be a wonder weapon) on the borders and her cities at the mercy of the US along the coasts.
Cut the BS zraver. I won't entertain your replys anymore. Learn from you we should to take something very simple and F^&KING obvious into a spectacle of face saving arrogant rants about the size of your balls(which if you actually had, you wouldn't had to blow the chinese for a new set of balls you b#$@h now would you? HAIN?) and the awesome military hardware you had in the vicinity.
Now for a graduate level course in insulting you little dipshit. Wait,... I'd get in trouble if I did insult you, and fanbois just are not worth the grief from Minks or Top. I guess the fact that you simply do not matter saves you from a true lashing. Have a wonderful day.
Comment
-
Oh great, more hypothetical examples about large balls.
Convincing a country to invade another country is not a "we didn't care" position!!. This is a post-position cause you couldn't exercise your pre-position.
You took this post position because of the predicament in real time!!
'This woman suckered us', said Nixon of Indira Gandhi
Hell yes she did!!
She assured the US that she would not intervene in east pakistan. She f$%king lied and that eclipsed your position.Last edited by anil; 22 Aug 13,, 18:07.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Blademaster View PostWere 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.
As for naval bases in India, even if India granted them, how exactly would they help the SU? Their navy wasn't large or strong enough to become the dominant power in the IO with the Americans there. On the other hand if they rolled through Afghanistan and Pakistan and got land access to Karachi, that would be something. A land route from the Arabian Sea all the way to the SU would be useful I'm thinking. So it was imperative for the US to stop Pakistan from collapsing and making the job easier for the SU. To that end, they were willing to allow the East Pakistanis to get culled by their western brothers.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Doktor View PostFrom 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 ;)
Did Kissinger really needed Pakistan to fly to China? Are there no other routes?
Comment
-
Originally posted by Firestorm View PostLose India? They never had India. India was always considered part of the Soviet bloc (on the fringes maybe, due to the lack of Communism and Soviet bases, but their side nonetheless). And tying down Soviet divisions would have been kind of a big thing acc. to me. If the soviets get a peaceful southern front, they can can concentrate all their energy on Europe. If the Chinese can stop that with American help it would be a huge help.
As for naval bases in India, even if India granted them, how exactly would they help the SU? Their navy wasn't large or strong enough to become the dominant power in the IO with the Americans there. On the other hand if they rolled through Afghanistan and Pakistan and got land access to Karachi, that would be something. A land route from the Arabian Sea all the way to the SU would be useful I'm thinking. So it was imperative for the US to stop Pakistan from collapsing and making the job easier for the SU. To that end, they were willing to allow the East Pakistanis to get culled by their western brothers.
Naval bases always help you project naval power and increase your naval presence. If you don't have naval bases or aircraft carriers, your naval presence is weak.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Blademaster View PostIn 1962 USA supported India against China. USA was supposedly neutral in 1965. So USA had India in its periphery and India wasn't really part of the Soviet bloc. Only in 1971 did India become an unofficial part of the Soviet bloc when it signed that friendship treaty. So USA did lose India.
Naval bases always help you project naval power and increase your naval presence. If you don't have naval bases or aircraft carriers, your naval presence is weak.No such thing as a good tax - Churchill
To make mistakes is human. To blame someone else for your mistake, is strategic.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Blademaster View PostIn 1962 USA supported India against China. USA was supposedly neutral in 1965. So USA had India in its periphery and India wasn't really part of the Soviet bloc. Only in 1971 did India become an unofficial part of the Soviet bloc when it signed that friendship treaty. So USA did lose India.
Naval bases always help you project naval power and increase your naval presence. If you don't have naval bases or aircraft carriers, your naval presence is weak.
India had shown no desire to side with the US and other democracies in opposing communism, even after US support in 62. So she wasn't a foil against China and there was no direct route to the USSR (unlike Pakistan) and she did not border other Us allies contiguously like Pakistan did. Finnally the RN had not yet begin its full scale retreat from the region. In short, in the early-mid 60's India was the backend of nowhere in terms of Cold War importance to the US.
Anil,
Non-fiction is for losers.
BTW your lightbulb's burnt out.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Doktor View PostHence why I wondered if that treaty with SU was as wise of a move as it is said here by some Indian posters.
Having naval bases without a navy is like buying spare tires for the car you don't have.
Comment
-
Z,
Originally posted by zraver View PostYes but not for the reasons the posters have been positing. Without the Soviets and under a British Arms embargo and not on good terms with the Americans India found herself facing a dangerous correlation of forces. China had Mig-21's ad Tu-4 and Tu-16 bombers, Pakistan had improved F-86's and new F-104's. Not a good place to be. The treaty let India begin to catch up and modernize.
That beaing said, IMV, if India remained neutral, or to put it more bluntly, if she didn't sign the contract with Soviets, she would still have a backup from the SU. Only for less money spent on Indian side. And they would have backed her up for the same reason they did historically bar the treaty.
The Soviets didn't want naval bases. They wanted a hedge against China (relations were going from bad to almost nuclear) a market for Soviet goods, support in the UN from the biggest former colony, and a minor propaganda victory against the west (look whose side the worlds biggest democracy picked nahahahah!!!!!!!).No such thing as a good tax - Churchill
To make mistakes is human. To blame someone else for your mistake, is strategic.
Comment
-
Zraver, the timelines are a bit off. The treaty was signed in 1971. India started buying Soviet hardware much earlier. The first Mig-21s entered service in the IAF in 1964. The Su-7s and SA-2's came in a little after that. T-55's must have been earlier, although I don't know the exact date.
India had attempted to buy F-104s earlier in 1961 I think. We were refused. And then the F-104s were given to Pakistan in addition to the F-86s earlier. And yet somehow, it was India which chose to side with the USSR.Last edited by Firestorm; 22 Aug 13,, 20:11.
Comment
-
IMO the indo-soviet treaty of friendship and collaboration was aimed more so towards the chinese (instead of the Americans). Anyhow it was India that was courted by the Soviets during that time (the push for a treaty was initiated by the Soviets). Keep in mind that the SU and India pretty much sandwiched China between themselves. My point being that India was not just a (sort of) client state to the Soviets and had the push come to shove in '71, things could have gotten interesting (especially if the Chinese were involved!)
As to why India FP tilted towards the Soviets significantly was because it was the Soviets that were willing to collaborate with Indians on matters such as military hardware ToT, Space Exploration and Co-operation, diplomatic support, etc. While the Americans were busy arming Pakistan, warming up to the Chinese and at times even threatening India.
EDIT: And isn't the USS Enterprise incident the direct catalyst for the Indian nuclear program?Last edited by DarthSiddius; 22 Aug 13,, 20:11.
Comment
Comment