It wasn't China, but Nehru who declared 1962 war: Australian journalist Neville Maxwell

[chhota bheem]

So why did Nehru attack us first?

Read it, from the Henderson-Brooks report:



The Henderson-Brooks report quotes from Indian Generals, who were fighting on the ground in the 1962 War.

I guess they know more about it then you do?

Noph ,all i am saying is you dont know.
Of all material available on net of the so called report ,you are holding onto one quote by the commander.that too not realising what he is saying which dsnt support your argument that India started the war.

Again i say its the chinese rulers who used it to divert the internal problems which china was facing at that time.

 

[Chinese-Dragon]

Noph ,all i am saying is you dont know.
Of all material available on net of the so called report ,you are holding onto one quote by the commander.that too not realising what he is saying which dsnt support your argument that India started the war.

Again i say its the chinese rulers who used it to divert the internal problems which china was facing at that time.

Well, that is your own theory.

Do you have any evidence for this theory?

And it must mean that Nehru was complicit with China, since he ordered the Indian Army to attack and push the Chinese out of his unilaterally claimed border line, more than a week before the Chinese offensive even started.

 

[chhota bheem]

Actually it is the Indian media, the Indian academics, and the Indian army reports that are pushing forward the simple fact that it was India's Forward Policy that started the 1962 War. A fact on which both Indian historians and Western historians agree.

Or do you think the Indian Army, the Indian media, as well as Indian and Western historians are all on China's payroll?

Strange, because your Italian Sonia has more personal wealth than the entire Standing Committee combined. How could we bribe the Indian Army into writing Chinese propaganda so easily?

Its a disputed territory ,china has builtup along the LAC all India did was to set up few posts to counter that and thats the forward policy you have been refering to ,
And a post was set in are where India had no claim and thats the reason war happened.

Actually it is the Indian media, the Indian academics, and the Indian army reports that are pushing forward the simple fact that it was India's Forward Policy that started the 1962 War. A fact on which both Indian historians and Western historians agree.

Or do you think the Indian Army, the Indian media, as well as Indian and Western historians are all on China's payroll?

Strange, because your Italian Sonia has more personal wealth than the entire Standing Committee combined. How could we bribe the Indian Army into writing Chinese propaganda so easily?

Its a disputed territory ,china has builtup along the LAC all India did was to set up few posts to counter that and thats the forward policy you have been refering to ,
And a post was set in are where India had no claim and thats the reason war happened.

Nehru called us "brothers" (it was only ever said in Hindi, not in Chinese), then he immediately back stabbed us, by hosting our largest separatist group in 1959, immediately after their failed violent uprising against China.

As if that was not enough, he also attacked us during our worst ever famine in history, the Great leap forward.

What kind of "brother" attacks you when you are dying of starvation? That is a sick mockery of the term brother.



That is a rather silly argument.

Military build up is not proof of an imminent attack.

By that logic, China's military build up in Tibet is a hundred times greater TODAY, than it ever was during the 1960's.

The border infrastructure imbalance is even more in our favor now, meaning we can bring a much greater force of soldiers and equipment to any point along the LAC, in overwhelming numbers and speed. The disparity is so great that the Indian Army has openly complained about it in the media.

Not to mention our military budget, and the fact that we have the world's largest inventory of non-nuclear ballistic missiles in the world, which combined with our thousands of cruise missiles and rocket artillery, can easily target New Delhi (which is only 300 km from the border), and take out all of India's airbases that could provide cover to India's NE.

And given the fact that we have the high ground on the Tibetan plateau, India's ground radars will be facing a sheer mountain wall, meaning that they will not be able to detect missiles or aircraft until they have crossed the plateau.

So, given China's enormous military build up in Tibet today, does that mean China is preparing to attack India?

Now about back stabbing,and brother part.
Again i ask,forget about nehru saying bhai bhai,you your self claim chinese dint say that,that means you never treated us as brothers.
If you have treated or believed in it,what would have a friend done,informed his friend that you have set a post in your territory and if that dsnt work then you go for war,but thats not what happened so you can cut that crap about back stabing part.

Well, that is your own theory.

Do you have any evidence for this theory?

And it must mean that Nehru was complicit with China, since he ordered the Indian Army to attack and push the Chinese out of his unilaterally claimed border line, more than a week before the Chinese offensive even started.

You have been saying Indian attacked and pushed chinese out of the claimed border ,you are the one who has to prove it.

 

[Omega007]

Actually it is the Indian media, the Indian academics, and the Indian army reports that are pushing forward the simple fact that it was India's Forward Policy that started the 1962 War. A fact on which both Indian historians and Western historians agree.

Or do you think the Indian Army, the Indian media, as well as Indian and Western historians are all on China's payroll?

Strange, because your Italian Sonia has more personal wealth than the entire Standing Committee combined. How could we bribe the Indian Army into writing Chinese propaganda so easily?

And here again comes the Dragon with a monumental comprehension issues!!

They accuse Forward Policy because it brought the war on us.Now read again slowly
Forward Policy...........brought the war........up onto us.Why??Because according to them the Chinese suddenly felt so much threatened by a few undermanned and under armed isolated BOPs set up under the Forward Policy that they had to launch massive preemptive invasion to secure themselves!!
Never does it say that Indian forces actually started the war (drew the first blood) by physically assaulting the PLA positions.Basically the report accuses Nehru and his Forward Policy of provoking the Chinese into launching a massive invasion onto the unprepared Indian Army (and rightly so).So how can it be that Indian Army started the war when PLA preemptive strike on 20th october against the positions of 7th Brigade in Namka Chu valley situated south of Thag La ridge actually marks the beginning of the conflict??How could the Indians be the aggressor when it was the PLA that had launched the preemptive strike??
Ok,let me get this thing clear.Do you seriously want to tell us that the Indian side,which bear the burnt of PLA preemptive strike is somehow the attacker (by forcing you to preempt them) and the PLA that actually launched the preemptive strike was the victim!!Bravo general!!Bravo!!For you've virtually revolutionised the whole definition of war!!

 

[Chinese-Dragon]

Its a disputed territory ,china has builtup along the LAC all India did was to set up few posts to counter that and thats the forward policy you have been refering to ,
And a post was set in are where India had no claim and thats the reason war happened.


Its a disputed territory ,china has builtup along the LAC all India did was to set up few posts to counter that and thats the forward policy you have been refering to ,
And a post was set in are where India had no claim and thats the reason war happened.

Now about back stabbing,and brother part.
Again i ask,forget about nehru saying bhai bhai,you your self claim chinese dint say that,that means you never treated us as brothers.
If you have treated or believed in it,what would have a friend done,informed his friend that you have set a post in your territory and if that dsnt work then you go for war,but thats not what happened so you can cut that crap about back stabing part.


You have been saying Indian attacked and pushed chinese out of the claimed border ,you are the one who has to prove it.

Read the OP, or the quote from your own Indian general.

Nehru unilaterally decided the border line, and told the Indian Army to attack and kick out the Chinese from his unilaterally decided border line. This was more than a week before the Chinese response.

This was essentially a declaration of war from Nehru. Especially since it went even beyond his claim line.

 

[Omega007]

So why did Nehru attack us first?

Read it, from the Henderson-Brooks report:



The Henderson-Brooks report quotes from Indian Generals, who were fighting on the ground in the 1962 War.

I guess they know more about it then you do?

Have you even passed grade school....seriously??I mean you don't even realise that the remark by Niranjan Prasad,
commander of 4 Division,actually contradicts your claim??But how could you??I keep forgetting about your monumental comprehension issues.

Okay,let me amplify this for you.So what did General Prasad,GOC 4 Infantry division said - "We at the front
knew that since Nehru had
said he was going to attack,
the Chinese were certainly
not going to wait to be
attacked".
So what does it mean??Read it one more time.....this time slowly.

He said, "we at the front knew that since Nehru had said he was going to attack" means,Nehru had given a verbal order to evict the PLA (which by then he had done for god knows how many times) and the order wasn't acted upon since Indian Army was in no positions to do so.

The next part is as follows - "the Chinese were certainly not going to wait to be attacked".Which means they knew the Chinese would preempt them on the basis of some false bravado and warcries by Nehru;which the PLA did on October 20th against the 7th Infantry Brigade in Namka Chu.So who is the attacker,who drew the first blood even as per your beloved General Niranjan Prasad,the GOC of 4 division??

I don't know how to put it in any simpler terms than this.If you still can't comprehend this......then go figure it out.

Read the OP, or the quote from your own Indian general.

Nehru unilaterally decided the border line, and told the Indian Army to attack and kick out the Chinese from his unilaterally decided border line. This was more than a week before the Chinese response.

This was essentially a declaration of war from Nehru. Especially since it went even beyond his claim line.

Yeah yeah,like we haven't heard it all already!!And how could you accuse Nehru of something when your own country had indulged in the same way back in late 50s itself??Have you forgotten what your nation did in Aksai Chin??How many border patrols they ambushed and killed unprovoked??If all these doesn't equals to an act of aggression,then bloody sure hell what Nehru did can not be equal to the same.

 

[Chinese-Dragon]

Yeah yeah,like we haven't heard it all already!!And how could you accuse Nehru of something when your own country had indulged in the same way back in late 50s itself??Have you forgotten what your nation did in Aksai Chin??How many border patrols they ambushed and killed unprovoked??If all these doesn't equals to an act of aggression,then bloody sure hell what Nehru did can not be equal to the same.

If you think what we did was an act of war, why didn't you respond to it?

The reason we didn't respond to India hosting our largest separatist group in 1959, was simply because we were too weak. Since that was the year the Great leap forward started.

But the Forward Policy was too much. How can you attack and kick out Chinese soldiers from Chinese territory? There was no way Nehru didn't know that was an act of war.

 

[chhota bheem]

If you think what we did was an act of war, why didn't you respond to it?

The reason we didn't respond to India hosting our largest separatist group in 1959, was simply because we were too weak. Since that was the year the Great leap forward started.

But the Forward Policy was too much. How can you attack and kick out Chinese soldiers from Chinese territory? There was no way Nehru didn't know that was an act of war.

Dude you are repeating the same thing in every post ,still havent posting anything related to ,if India started the war and you guys responded a week or more later,you tell me how many chinse lost their life and how many posts did India over run.

 

[SarthakGanguly]

I read Maxwell's book. This is what I got from it.

1. Nehru was braindead. So was Kaul and Menon. And I agree.

2. The Forward Policy was a stupid policy. That provoked the Chinese to no end. I agree with this as well.

3. The important part that is ignored is this - even though there were provocations, China could have responded with removing the posts and ending the impasse. But these are the reasons that Maxwell considered - regarding why China hit back so hard.

i. China was going through a tough time, famines, disillusionment was high.
ii. The Soviet Union was trying to get close to India.
iii. American actions in Korea and Taiwan had made China suspicious and even alarmed.
iv. There was a desperate need to boost the morale of the population as well as the armed forces.

4. India knew these, but still carried on with the Forward Policy.

5. India never prepared for war. India was ordered to take the area without expecting Chinese retaliation

6. The Chinese attacked the pickets in force and moved up to Assam, and then unilaterally withdrew.

Chinese After Action Reports also conclude that they met resistance only after crossing the MM line. India was a soft target. China had to prove a point. The Forward Policy made it easier. The rest is history.

So determining the aggressor is not a black and white case here.

 

[dray]

http://www.newsweek.com/how-china-fights-lessons-1962-sino-indian-war-65429

How China Fights: Lessons From the 1962 Sino-Indian War
By Brahma Chellaney
Filed: 10/29/12 at 1:00 AM | Updated: 10/28/12 at 9:27 PM

The blitzkrieg sent crowds of men, women, and children running for sanctuary. Larry Burrows / Time & Life Pictures-Getty Images

• The rest of the world may have forgotten the anniversary, but a neglected border war that took place 50 years ago is now more pertinent than ever. Before dawn on the morning of Oct. 20, 1962, the People’s Liberation Army launched a surprise attack, driving with overwhelming force through the eastern and western sections of the Himalayas, deep into northeastern India. On the 32nd day of fighting, Beijing announced a unilateral ceasefire, and the war ended as abruptly as it had begun. Ten days later, the Chinese began withdrawing from the areas they had penetrated on India’s eastern flank, between Bhutan and Burma, but they kept their territorial gains in the West—part of the original princely state of Jammu and Kashmir. India had suffered a humiliating rout, and China’s international stature had grown substantially.
  
  Today, half a century after the Sino-Indian War, the geopolitical rivalry between the world’s two main demographic titans is again sharpening, as new disputes deepen old rifts. Booming bilateral trade has failed to subdue their rivalry and military tensions, and China has largely frittered away the political gains of its long-ago victory. But the war’s continuing significance extends far beyond China and India. By baring key elements of Beijing’s strategic doctrine, it offers important lessons, not only to China’s neighbors but also to the U.S. military. Here are just six of the principles the People’s Republic of China relied on in attacking India—and will undoubtedly use again in the future.
  
  SURPRISE: China places immense value on blindsiding its adversaries. The idea is to inflict political and psychological shock on the enemy while scoring early battlefield victories. This emphasis on tactical surprise dates back more than 2,000 years, to the classic Chinese strategist Sun Tzu, who argued that all warfare is “based on deception” and offered this advice on how to take on an opponent: “Attack where he is unprepared; sally out when he does not expect you. These are the strategist’s keys to victory.” The Chinese started and ended the 1962 war when India least expected it. They did much the same thing when they invaded Vietnam in 1979.
  
  CONCENTRATE: China’s generals believe in hitting as fast and as hard as possible, a style of warfare they demonstrated in their 1962 blitzkrieg against India. The aim is to wage “battles with swift outcome” (su jue zhan). This laser focus has been a hallmark of every military action Communist China has undertaken since 1949.
  
  STRIKE FIRST: Beijing doesn’t balk at using military force for political ends. On the contrary, China has repeatedly set out to “teach a lesson” to adversaries so they will dare not challenge Beijing’s interests in the future. Chinese Premier Zhou Enlai explained that the 1962 war was meant to “teach India a lesson.” Paramount leader Deng Xiaoping used the same formulation in 1979 when he became the first Chinese Communist leader to visit Washington and told America’s then-president Jimmy Carter that “Vietnam must be taught a lesson, like India.” China invaded its Southeast Asian neighbor just days later. (India’s foreign minister happened to be in China at the time of the invasion, seeking to revive the bilateral relationship that had been frozen since 1962.) China ended its Vietnam invasion and withdrew from Vietnam after 29 days, declaring that Hanoi had been sufficiently chastised.
  
  WAIT FOR IT: Choose the most opportune moment. The 1962 war was a classic case: the attack coincided with the Cuban missile crisis, which brought the world to the brink of nuclear Armageddon and thereby distracted potential sources of international support for India. No sooner had the U.S. signaled an end to the face-off with Moscow than China declared a unilateral ceasefire in its invasion of India. During the war, the international spotlight remained on the U.S.-Soviet showdown, not on China’s bloody invasion of a country that then had good relations with both the U.S. and the Soviet Union.
  
  The pattern has persisted. After America pulled out of South Vietnam, China seized the Paracel Islands. In 1988, when Moscow’s support for Vietnam had faded and Afghanistan had killed the Soviets’ enthusiasm for foreign adventures, China occupied the disputed Johnson Reef in the Spratlys. And in 1995, when the Philippines stood isolated after having forced the U.S. to close its major military bases at Subic Bay and elsewhere on the archipelago, China seized Mischief Reef.
  
  RATIONALIZE: Beijing likes to camouflage offense as defense. “The history of modern Chinese warfare provides numerous case studies in which China’s leaders have claimed military preemption as a strategically defensive act,” the Pentagon said in a 2010 report to Congress. The report cited a long list of examples, including the 1962 war, 1969 (when China provoked border clashes with the Soviet Union), the 1979 invasion of Vietnam, and even 1950, when China intervened in the Korean War. Beijing called its 1962 invasion a “defensive counterattack,” a term it subsequently used for the invasion of Vietnam and the seizure of the Paracel Islands, Johnson Reef, and Mischief Reef.
  
  DARE: Risk-taking has long been an integral feature of Chinese strategy. Willingness to take military gambles was evident not only under Mao Zedong’s zigzag helmsmanship but even when the rigorously pragmatic Deng invaded Vietnam, disregarding the possibility of Soviet intervention. And the risk-taking paid off each time. The past success may give Beijing confidence to take even more chances in the future, especially now that China has second-strike nuclear capability and unprecedented economic and conventional military strength.
  
  The 1962 war took place at a time when the People’s Republic was poor, internally troubled, and without nuclear weapons. But it showed the world how China’s generals think. And it helps explain why Beijing’s rapidly growing military power is raising serious concern.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Example of a war-mongering nation.

 

[Chinese-Dragon]

Example of a war-mongering nation.

LOL, we are warmongers?

Yet we haven't had any wars, or cross-border bloodshed for over 30 years?

Whereas India has cross-border bloodshed all the time. On India's western border, you have civilians being routinely shot, and even soldiers regularly being killed. Not only killed, but these soldiers are getting their heads cut off and their bodies mutilated, they still haven't found the head of one of them. (Now compare this to boats shooting water cannons at each other).

On India's eastern border, BSF personnel regularly shoot dead civilians (including children), cattle smugglers, refugees, and even security forces on the other side.

Don't take my word for it though, check the Global Peace Index. China is ranked MUCH higher than India on it.

Global Peace Index - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Last but not least, since it was India who started the 1962 war, your entire point seems ironic. Just because you lost doesn't mean you couldn't have started it, the facts all show that Nehru's Forward policy was the start of the Sino-Indian War.

 

[dray]

LOL, we are warmongers?

Yet we haven't had any wars, or cross-border bloodshed for over 30 years?

It is just because China doesn't have such capabilities yet, when they will have it, they will be far more aggressive and uncontrollable than any other country, as they say, "Morning shows the day".

Whereas India has cross-border bloodshed all the time. On India's western border, you have civilians being routinely shot, and even soldiers regularly being killed. Not only killed, but these soldiers are getting their heads cut off and their bodies mutilated, they still haven't found the head of one of them. (Now compare this to boats shooting water cannons at each other).

If you check the history of it, the bloodshed was imposed on us by our neighbours. By the way, I think you guys have already started getting a taste of a particular kind of fanaticism in one of your provinces, hope you will realize the extent of that menace soon and stop blaming us for the bloodshed.

On India's eastern border, BSF personnel regularly shoot dead civilians (including children), cattle smugglers, refugees, and even security forces on the other side.

Don't take my word for it though, check the Global Peace Index. China is ranked MUCH higher than India on it.

Global Peace Index - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I asked you previously but you avoided the question, how would you deal with the situation if Indians start crossing over to China illegally in millions and start settling there en masse, creating a massive social as well as law & order problem there?

Last but not least, since it was India who started the 1962 war, your entire point seems ironic. Just because you lost doesn't mean you couldn't have started it, the facts all show that Nehru's Forward policy was the start of the Sino-Indian War.

The facts show that China used the Forward Policy as a pretext to attack India.

 

[Chinese-Dragon]

The facts show that China used the Forward Policy as a pretext to attack India.

Umm... no.

See this, from India's own internal Army report (the Henderson-Brooks report):

Dhola Post that triggered war was on China's side of McMahon Line | Business Standard

India established military posts far beyond the McMahon line, in land they did not even claim! After which, Nehru instructed the Indian Army to "throw out" the Chinese from that land.

That is a declaration of war in anyone's book. Imagine Mexico set up military posts in Texas, and tried to "throw out" American troops from Texas.

 

[dlclong]

This is why the Indian Defense Ministry rejected the request for a public on the Sino-Indian War secret report .
On the contrary, India call white black, has been playing the victim.
In China, 99% people do not care about the 1962 war, before high school I even did not know the Sino-Indian border war, and has territorial disputes with India .
Only Indians like noisy.
Today is also, for the disputed territory, only the Indian media said the Chinese invasion, Chinese media has never said that India invaded. According to my soldier friend said that the Indian army are often destruction of infrastructure in China controlled areas , but Chinese media never like to say this thing.

Why? ? Because the Indians were brainwashed themselves "democratic" government.I believe that this is a good tool recriminations between the different political parties in India.
But I want to say, please do not put us into your home dirty politics

 

[dray]

Umm... no.

See this, from India's own internal Army report (the Henderson-Brooks report):

Dhola Post that triggered war was on China's side of McMahon Line | Business Standard

India established military posts far beyond the McMahon line, in land they did not even claim! After which, Nehru instructed the Indian Army to "throw out" the Chinese from that land.

That is a declaration of war in anyone's book. Imagine Mexico set up military posts in Texas, and tried to "throw out" American troops from Texas.

As I have said so many times in so many threads, Nehru was not looking forward to a war with China, and that's why he (foolishly) didn't move troops to the China border or prepared for the war even after several high-level reports and warnings by our military for a probable Chinese attack, Nehru just ignored them believing that a war will not happen.

The miniscule number of only 8,000-10,000 Indian soldiers facing your 100,000 strong army is good enough to show that Nehru was not expecting a war, neither he started it.

But the attacking nation always find some excuse for their aggression, just like the way Jr. Bush found WMD in Iraq!!