What's new

Myth shatterd "india won 65 war?"

There is always a third party of one's choice.
The tragedy is some never learn from past, hence they have to be reminded or even taught a lesson or two.

Your this quote summarize all the discussions in this regard.. So learn from the past and don't glorify hypothetical achievements and live in present..:cheers:

For the second bold part i can only say that We have learnt our lessons way back in 62 and 65 and we have also reminded you about the past lessons in 71..
 
.
Indians just never learn do they.
I have observed indian activity in this thread an now i can say without shadow of any dough that they all suffer from mental disorder called "pathological lie" and funny thing they will reply you the very next post reflecting what i am saying.


I led a party of Pakistani and foreign journalists to the Rann of Kutch area a few days later. After the G.O.C., Major General Tika Khan, had finished briefing the party, one of the foreign journalists got up and asked, "General you say you have killed 300 Indians, the Indians say they have killed 350 Pakistanis. Who would we believe." The General was not perturbed. In his usual cool manner he replied. "I am placing all my helicopters at your disposal. If you see, when you go over the battle area, that the junk of war is in front of me then the Indians are telling the truth, but if the junk of the war is behind me then I alone could be in a position to count the dead." "fair enough" replied the foreign journalist. On his return it was the same journalist who remarked "Gosh - You made them run in the Rann."
8 Infantry Division and its troops to whom the credit goes for making the Indian soldier run in the Rann,
as they had never run before, were ordered the next day, "No more offensive". Common friends had realized the danger of these two countries fighting. The outcome had not been as expected. It was, therefore, incumbent to stop the shooting match. Except capturing a convoy of seven brand new Mercedies the division, after that, confined its activities to patrolling of the area immediately in its fornt.
Cease Fire came through the efforts of the British Prime Minister and the Indian Prime Minister Mr. Lal bahadur Shastri consoled his nation announcing, "We will attack at a place of our own choosing." As if Rann of Kutch had been a place of somebody else's choosing. He isno more to tell the world whose advice had resulted in this choice.

Rowle Knox,
Daily Telegraph,
London, May 5, 1965.


"Pakistan's success in the air means that she has been able to redeploy her relatively small army -- professionally among the best in Asia -- with impunity, plugging gaps in the long front in the face of each Indian thrust."

"By all accounts the courage displayed by the Pakistan Air Force pilots is reminiscent of the bravery of the few young and dedicated pilots who saved this country from Nazi invaders in the critical Battle of Britain during the last war."

Patrick Seale,
The Observer, London,
September 12, 1965.


"India is claiming all out victory. I have not been able to find any trace of it. All I can see are troops, tanks and other war material rolling in a steady stream towards the front."

"If the Indian Air Force is so victorious, why has it not tried to halt this flow?. The answer is that it has been knocked from the skies by Pakistani planes."

"These muslims of Pakistan are natural fighters and they ask for no quarter and they give none. In any war, such as the one going on between India and Pakistan right now, the propoganda claims on either side are likely to be startling. But if I have to take bet today, my money would be on the Pakistan side."

"Pakistan claims to have destroyed something like 1/3rd the Indian Air Force, and foreign observers, who are in a position to know say that Pakistani pilots have claimed even higher kills than this; but the Pakistani Air Force are being scrupulously honest in evaluating these claims. They are crediting Pakistan Air Force only those killings that can be checked from other sources."

Roy Meloni,
American Broadcasting Corporation
September 15, 1965.

"One thing I am convinced of is that Pakistan morally and even physically won the air battle against immense odds."

"Although the Air Force gladly gives most credit to the Army, this is perhaps over-generous. India with roughly five times greater air-power, expected an easy air-superiority. Her total failure to attain it may be seen retrospectively as a vital, possibly the most vital, of the whole conflict."

"Nur Khan is an alert, incisive man of 41, who seems even less. For six years he was on secondment and responsible for running Pakistan's civil air-line, which, in a country where 'now' means sometime and 'sometime' means never, is a model of efficiency. he talks without the jargon of a press relations officer. He does not quibble abobut figures. Immediately one has confidence in what he says."

"His estimates, proffered diffidently but with as much photographic evidence as possible, speak for themselves. Indian and Pakistani losses, he thinks, are in something like the ration of ten to one."

"Yet, the quality of equipment, Nur insists, is less important than flying ability and determination. the Indians have no sense of purpose. The Pakistanis were defending their own country and willingly taking greater risks. 'The average bomber crews flew 15 to 20 sorties. My difficulty was restraining them, not pushing them on.' "

"This is more than nationalistic pride. Talk to the pilots themselves and you get the same intense story."

Peter Preston,
The Guardian, London
September 24, 1965.


"One point particularly noted by military observers is that in their frist advances the Indians did not use air power effectively to support their troops. by contrast, the Pakistanis, with sophisticated timing, swooped in on Ambala airfield and destroyed some 25 Indian planes just after they had landed and were sitting on the ground out of fuel and powerless to escape (NOTE: PAF has not claimed any IAF aircraft during it's attacks on Ambala due to non-availability of concrete evidence of damage in night bombing.)"

"By the end of the week, in fact, it was clear that the Pakistanis were more than holding their own."

Everett G. Martin,
General Editor, Newsweek
September 20, 1965.


"India's barbarity is mounting in fury as the Indian army and Air Force, severely mauled, are showing signs of demoralisation. The huge losses suffered by the Indian Armed Forces during the last 12 days of fighting could not be kept from the Indian public and in retaliation, the Indian armed forces are indulging in the most barbaric methods."

"The Chief of Indian Air Force could no longer ensure the safety of Indian air space. A well known Indian journalist, Mr Frank Moraes, in a talk from All-india radio, also admitted that IAF had suffered severe losses and it was no use hiding the fact and India should be prepared for more losses...."

Indonesian Herald
September 11, 1965.
 
.
But still how you won 1965?


Who occupied thrice the land occupied by opposite party? Bigger Picture?

Pathological lair. their is a big difference between "CLAIMING" and "proving" with evidence, so far i can only see wild claims by indians nothing else.
 
.

There have been only a few neutral assessments of the damages of the war. In the opinion of GlobalSecurity.org, "The losses were relatively heavy ? on the Pakistani side, twenty aircraft, 200 tanks, and 3,800 troops. Pakistan's army had been able to withstand Indian pressure, but a continuation of the fighting would only have led to further losses and ultimate defeat for Pakistan."

Globalsecurity did not even conduct pak-indo war research on its own. They just turned indian words on their own.


I led a party of Pakistani and foreign journalists to the Rann of Kutch area a few days later. After the G.O.C., Major General Tika Khan, had finished briefing the party, one of the foreign journalists got up and asked, "General you say you have killed 300 Indians, the Indians say they have killed 350 Pakistanis. Who would we believe." The General was not perturbed. In his usual cool manner he replied. "I am placing all my helicopters at your disposal. If you see, when you go over the battle area, that the junk of war is in front of me then the Indians are telling the truth, but if the junk of the war is behind me then I alone could be in a position to count the dead." "fair enough" replied the foreign journalist. On his return it was the same journalist who remarked "Gosh - You made them run in the Rann."
8 Infantry Division and its troops to whom the credit goes for making the Indian soldier run in the Rann, as they had never run before, were ordered the next day, "No more offensive". Common friends had realized the danger of these two countries fighting. The outcome had not been as expected. It was, therefore, incumbent to stop the shooting match. Except capturing a convoy of seven brand new Mercedies the division, after that, confined its activities to patrolling of the area immediately in its fornt.
Cease Fire came through the efforts of the British Prime Minister and the Indian Prime Minister Mr. Lal bahadur Shastri consoled his nation announcing, "We will attack at a place of our own choosing." As if Rann of Kutch had been a place of somebody else's choosing. He isno more to tell the world whose advice had resulted in this choice.

Rowle Knox,
Daily Telegraph,
London, May 5, 1965.
 
.
Your this quote summarize all the discussions in this regard.. So learn from the past and don't glorify hypothetical achievements and live in present..:cheers:

For the second bold part i can only say that We have learnt our lessons way back in 62 and 65 and we have also reminded you about the past lessons in 71..
One must acknowledge your acceptance of 62 and 65 as there are others who only portray their oblivion.
However we have also not forgotten 71, and since you never miss an opportunity to glorify that conspiracy, it all the more justifies our laurels in the 65..... what do you say ??
However after 71, it seems to have gone all pear shape.
 
.
One must acknowledge your acceptance of 62 and 65 as there are others who only portray their oblivion.
However we have also not forgotten 71, and since you never miss an opportunity to glorify that conspiracy, it all the more justifies our laurels in the 65..... what do you say ??
However after 71, it seems to have gone all pear shape.

Sir, don't you think needless importance is being given to this thread? Your sarcasm is being missed on the other threads.
regards
 
.
i dont know why there is even a conversation on this topic when there isnt even a shred of evidence that india did not lose the war, except for this whining.
 
.
Sir, don't you think needless importance is being given to this thread? Your sarcasm is being missed on the other threads.
regards

Damn, i have a fan club here, but some how sir and sarcasm don't seem to blend. Hope you are not just a fan boy. :lol:
 
.
Damn, i have a fan club here, but some how sir and sarcasm don't seem to blend. Hope you are not just a fan boy. :lol:

Pardon me for not having a rich English like yours sir. But I frankly don't believe in preparing alphabet soups like you, so i never care if my words blend or not.
 
.
Pardon me for not having a rich English like yours sir. But I frankly don't believe in preparing alphabet soups like you, so i never care if my words blend or not.

I don't regard my English anything more than reasonable, however this much i do know, that if you are not exactly here then it means you are not all there either.:azn:
 
.
Guyz, Read following from wiki

With declining stockpiles of ammunition, Pakistani leaders feared the war tilting in India's favor. Therefore, they quickly accepted the ceasefire in Tashkent.[62] Despite strong opposition from Indian military leaders, India budged to growing international diplomatic pressure and accepted the ceasefire.[62] On September 22, the United Nations Security Council unanimously passed a resolution that called for an unconditional ceasefire from both nations. The war ended the following day.

Now decide who won the war and who was disparate for ceasefire.
 
.
Guyz, Read following from wiki

With declining stockpiles of ammunition, Pakistani leaders feared the war tilting in India's favor. Therefore, they quickly accepted the ceasefire in Tashkent.[62] Despite strong opposition from Indian military leaders, India budged to growing international diplomatic pressure and accepted the ceasefire.[62] On September 22, the United Nations Security Council unanimously passed a resolution that called for an unconditional ceasefire from both nations. The war ended the following day.

Now decide who won the war and who was disparate for ceasefire.


HAHA Wiki, i told you guys how indians have been polluting common sense by editing the pages and then basing their view of history on the regurgitated mess they create.

thank you for proving my point. :yahoo:
 
.
Guyz, Read following from wiki

they quickly accepted the ceasefire in Tashkent.

Firstly there is no link, and in any case,
Does the last word in authenticity aka wiki, tells us as who did first initiated for the ceasefire. ??
 
.
.
.
Back
Top Bottom