Is Defeat in a war good for a country?

[scorpionx]

If i believe that nothing great about defeating a smaller army, i also have to believe this is utter stupidity for a smaller army to poke its nose into India's internal matters and get the nose cut every time.

 

[Rusty]

If i believe that nothing great about defeating a smaller army, i also have to believe this is utter stupidity for a smaller army to poke its nose into India's internal matters and get the nose cut every time.

seriously?
I would question your sanity but I think I already know the answer.

India stuck its nose in our affair in 71.
We were having a civil war and India decided to join the party.


And nose cut off? really
47 Pakistan got 1/3 of Kashmir despite not even having a army
and
65 Pakistan and India fought to a tie. no nose cutting there

 

[arp2041]

seriously?
I would question your sanity but I think I already know the answer.

India stuck its nose in our affair in 71.
We were having a civil war and India decided to join the party.


And nose cut off? really
47 Pakistan got 1/3 of Kashmir despite not even having a army
and
65 Pakistan and India fought to a tie. no nose cutting there

mate, you are going wrong, how was it your internal affairs when at least 10 million population of former East Pakistan was taking a refuge in India, this is no small amount, this was taking a toll on our limited resources, India was forced in to jump & help Mukti Bahini.

 

[explorer9]

A saying says that "If you want lose the war, loose it as early as possible" so that you may know your capabilities and later focus on what you are capable of.

 

[Rusty]

mate, you are going wrong, how was it your internal affairs when at least 10 million population of former East Pakistan was taking a refuge in India, this is no small amount, this was taking a toll on our limited resources, India was forced in to jump & help Mukti Bahini.

so by that logic, any country that has ever hosted refugees has a right to declare war on the offending country?
c'mon man, get a grip.
India didn't have to do anything, she simply could of hosted the refugees like most other countries do and then when the fighting was over send them back.

 

[Machete]

The Indian entry is very forced.

India lost some land in 62, but it was mostly disputed border lands. Nothing big.
And they took an easy victory over Pakistan, a country 7x smaller then it.

Hardly call that rising as a phoenix.

Of all the countries listed, India has the smallest GDP and the most poverty.
Still got lots of work to do.

1962 war really united our people in one course that war laid foundation for operation SMILING BUDDHA (not smiling Allah) in 1974 ,today we tested AGNI 5 anything ringing?.

Defeat is a defeat... ok if that is the case China is bigger than India so our defeat is justified? India is not like Pakistan we accepted our defeat in 1962.

 

[Shinigami]

I was talking about population size.
Also your are including troops in west Pakistan who were not in the fight.
At the end of the day all the Pakistani troops in East Pakistan became POW and by all records there are about 40-45k Pakistani army POW

So if you want to compare troops, it would be 40-45k Pakistani troops vs 500k Indian troops.

So once again, nothing really "Great" about it.

WTF? West pakistan army did nothing?

guys check this out.

hint: defence of the east lies in the west

here is one of the many battles w.pak was VERY much a part of

Battle of Longewala - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Gandhi G in da house]

I believe sometimes it can be good . India's military defeat in 1962 to China proved good for India at least . Woke up our peace loving socialist leaders from their slumber .

 

[Rusty]

WTF? West pakistan army did nothing?

guys check this out.

hint: defence of the east lies in the west

here is one of the many battles w.pak was VERY much a part of

Battle of Longewala - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

lol you Bhartis only have cheap back handed slights.
Pakistan did not lose West Pakistan, we lost East Pakistan.
In East Pakistan you only faced about 40-45K solders and you won there. In West Pakistan you faced a much larger force and hence you were not able to conquer West Pakistan.

Is that still too difficult for you to understand?

Only "Shining" Indians would brag about defeating 40k solders with an army of 500k

 

[abdulbarijan]

WTF? West pakistan army did nothing?

guys check this out.

hint: defence of the east lies in the west

here is one of the many battles w.pak was VERY much a part of

Battle of Longewala - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

LOL!! very funny indeed what's more funny is how Pakistanis are always accused of having history distorted and "lies"... but hey check this out

-Bravery during siachin
-Battle of laungewala
-IN sinking PNS Ghazi
-Gnat "the sabre slayer"
-India never attacked any country

Amongst the biggest Indian myths but here is the reality chill pill...

 

[arp2041]

I believe sometimes it can be good . India's military defeat in 1962 to China proved good for India at least . Woke up our peace loving socialist leaders from their slumber .

Absolutely, that's my point, every defeat in a war, the people in defeated nation takes it as a dignity issue & just can't stop blaming there leaders for this, sometimes it can result in revolution & complete change in the polity of a country as happen in Russia (after WW1), Italy & Germany (after WW 2) etc.

 

[genmirajborgza786]

*
So I would suggest total war is good for a country however on the other side of coin is the maimed and killed which will run into millions. So I am not suggesting go have war but I just want to point out these type of wars do produce strange benefits. most European countries have been through these type of wars. W in South Asia have in comparison had nursery fights in Kindergarten school yard. Consider Battle of Somme. In one day British Army had 60,000 killed. By the time the battle was over 1 million men were dead. India, Pakistan in 65 years put togather have not lost half the men the British lost in one day.

Battle of the Somme - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

arp2041

6. Total strength of Pak Army is nearly 90,000 men including staff, logistics etc. Most of this force was deployed on counter insurgency operations and was never intended to handle a Indian attack at the same time. [ As a example there are over 140,000 NATO troops in Afghanistan in a country of 25 million - East Bengal had about 60 million people with 90,000 Pak soldiers ] Yet as we know the combined might of NATO is struggling to control the insurgency.

As if the six points above are not taxing enough for Pak Army [ clearly it's hands were already full] India joins in.

7. India is nearly 7 times bigger than Pakistan that would [ all things equal ] equate to 7 times more resources.8. India throws all it's might on three sides of East Bengal and working in synergy with Bengali irregulars defeats the pinned down, overwhelmed Pak forces.

.

sh!t man your geography is really weak

India is 12,00,000 sq mi + Indian administered Kashmir 38,830 sq mi = 12 lakhs 38 thousands 8 hundred & 30 sq mi

Pakistan is 307,374 sq miles + Pakistan administered Kashmir 31,000 sq mi = 3 lakhs 38 thousands 3 hundred & 74 sq mi

12,38 830/338,374 = 3.6
forget about 7 India was never even 4 times the size of Pakistan to begin with, heck even after 71 & occupying siachen in 84 its only 3.6 times the size of Pakistan ! wake up Pakistan is not a small country turkey which is considered a good size country add to sri lanka & another 6,000 sq mi & you get Pakistan


BBC News - Pakistan profile - Key facts

 

[xuxu1457]

杜甫·《前出塞·其六》

挽弓当挽强，用箭当用长。

射人先射马，擒贼先擒王。

杀人亦有限，列国自有疆。

苟能制侵陵，岂在多杀伤。

On the Border

(first series, nine poems)

Du Fu

translated by Burton Watson

If you draw a bow, draw a strong one,

if you use an arrow, use one that’s long.

If you want to shoot a man, shoot his horse first;

if you want to seize the enemy, first seize their leader.

But killing people has limits too;

guarding a state, there’re boundaries to be observed.

So long as you manage to keep invaders out—

what point in just seeing how many you can kill?

----------------------------------------------------
Unlimited expansion will inevitably lead to ruin, as Ancient Egypt, Persia, Alexander of Greece, , Napoleon, Hitler, Japan in World War II

 

[buddyboyyash]

I was talking about population size.
Also your are including troops in west Pakistan who were not in the fight.
At the end of the day all the Pakistani troops in East Pakistan became POW and by all records there are about 40-45k Pakistani army POW

So if you want to compare troops, it would be 40-45k Pakistani troops vs 500k Indian troops.

So once again, nothing really "Great" about it.

"DEFENCE OF THE EAST LIES IN THE WEST" was decided by ur leaders...

make wrong decisions and then say it was an easy victory nothing tough....

now get back to the topic

 

[meghdut]

A very thought provoking question you asked OP. I would not comment on the examples you have given, but address it broadly. A defeat, whether it's good or bad depends upon the extent of it's impact on the defeated nation. You cannot say Germany's defeat in WWI and WWII was beneficial. She suffered great humiliation and the social fabric of her society was greatly disrupted. She had to pay massive reparation after WWI which brought her economy to it's knee. On the other hand as you pointed out India's defeat in Sino-Indian war of 1962 did indeed benefited India's military. But just imagine what would have happened if we won?