Why China didn't intervene in 1971 war?

[Saahil84]

i menat moral=hosla not moral=ikhlaq... might exist spelling difference but no idea...

Oh...you mean "morale". I get it now...thanks!

But I think the Chinese doctrine of laying low till they feel they will have the upper hand has been made abundantly clear. They call it "peaceful rise", don't they? The Chinese government has been very cautious while dealing with neighbouring governments. Look, of course China has issues with pretty much all its neighbours, and now these things are coming to the fore in South China Sea, Senkaku/Diaoyu etc. But the fact remains, the Chinese don't make a move until they feel they will come out on top. They may be wrong in their assessment, but they are usually not rash.

In '71 they were not so confident. Despite trumping India in '62, the Chinese would be well aware that if not for the internal sabotage of malevolent men like V.K. Krishna Menon, things would not have been so easy for them.

We had a doctrine of no strong navy , or no navy with Amphibious warfare capabilities , and we lacked ships
Sad but truth and that is why we lost.

China's participation is not questioned , we were not well prepared in the sea where battle was lost

The battle in the West may have been lost by the Navy, but really, in the East, what chance did the Army ever have?

 

[livingdead]

We had a doctrine of no strong navy , or no navy with Amphibious warfare capabilities , and we lacked ships
Sad but truth and that is why we lost.

China's participation is not questioned , we were not well prepared in the sea where battle was lost

its not a doctrine.. army is bigger institution and take lion share of resource. Same story in India too (IA is dominant) but IN and IAF fight it out to get some goodies.

 

[jaiind]

 

[MastanKhan]

Why China didn't intervene in 1971 war?

Hi,

There was no reason for either china or the USA interfere in tis issue.

The issue was between two brothers who wanted to separate their house that was divided by a 1000 miles.

When one brother made the determination to operate his own house---there was no reason for anyone to interfere---.

If Pakistani leaders had vision-----there would have been no war---and with a hand shake---a pat on the back and with a hug---wishing each other well----we should have parted.

When you love someone---you need to set them free---.

 

[Goenitz]

They call it "peaceful rise", don't they? The Chinese government has been very cautious while dealing with neighbouring governments. Look, of course China has issues with pretty much all its neighbours, and now these things are coming to the fore in South China Sea, Senkaku/Diaoyu etc

those are unsolved old issues.... these are inevitably to be interrupted..Taiwan, hong kong , tibet had been part of old china...so just china bringing them to surface....

 

[Donatello]

Hi,

There was no reason for either china or the USA interfere in tis issue.

The issue was between two brothers who wanted to separate their house that was divided by a 1000 miles.

When one brother made the determination to operate his own house---there was no reason for anyone to interfere---.

If Pakistani leaders had vision-----there would have been no war---and with a hand shake---a pat on the back and with a hug---wishing each other well----we should have parted.

When you love someone---you need to set them free---.

Interesting points there i must say. What are you views on the so called 'Baloch liberation' (with regards to Pakistani Balochistan) because many ignorant and educated alike, always compare it with East Pakistan/Bangladesh scenario.

 

[MastanKhan]

Interesting points there i must say. What are you views on the so called 'Baloch liberation' (with regards to Pakistani Balochistan) because many ignorant and educated alike, always compare it with East Pakistan/Bangladesh scenario.

Hi,

Bangladesh had a different geography---a distance of a thousand miles seperating us---there is no comparison between the two.

 

[Sine Nomine]

According to Chinese members here including CD,Sino-Soviet border split was actually a display of Chinese capability to wage war with the Soviets and be victorious.

That was because of Ideological difference between the two,China wasn't capable to stop Soviets.They were having extreme edge on everything china was having in arsenal also most of Chinese Equipment was export variant of soviet Equipment.
There is one fine example:
Soviets Transferred Blue Prints of Mig-21 to china along with technical support and Machinery after Soviets withdrew there support,chinese made forward but in such a manner that, The J-7 only reached its Soviet-designed capabilities in the mid 1980s by that time the original aircraft design was showing its age.
China only moved forward after dissolution of USSR, when she employed Many thousand ex-soviet Engineers,Docters and scientists in different fields, who were left with no job after dissolution of USSR

 

[Bossman]

Uncle actually 93000 surrendered and out of them 68000 belonged either to army or paramilitary.

First debunk the claims of support you got. I asked for source of your country being sanctioned, is it hard to furnish or you are bluffing ?? And next time you quote me fetch me the source for that.

We were well armed and you were not armed , is it our fault ??

Which facts are you talking about uncle ?? Highlight that. I can back my every claim with source.

I don't have to prove anything to stinky Indian punks like you. Go do your own research. Who is blaming you for being well armed, its your prerogative but then don't state fiction like Pakistan getting support from the US and the so called Ummah.

 

[Imran Khan]

china was busy to make made in china moblies

 

[SwAggeR]

I don't have to prove anything to stinky Indian punks like you. Go do your own research. Who is blaming you for being well armed, its your prerogative but then don't state fiction like Pakistan getting support from the US and the so called Ummah.

I asked you simply for the source. Isn't it norm of forum discussions ??

Next what , Pakistan is spacefareing nation. When asked for source then get personal.


You can give thousands of excuses but fact remains unchanged, even your Ummah and west couldn't save you .


Looser's last resort is to get personal to show his frustration.

Now shooo... and stop bothering me with your nonsense.

 

[Kamikaze Pilot]

Oh...you mean "morale". I get it now...thanks!

But I think the Chinese doctrine of laying low till they feel they will have the upper hand has been made abundantly clear. They call it "peaceful rise", don't they? The Chinese government has been very cautious while dealing with neighbouring governments. Look, of course China has issues with pretty much all its neighbours, and now these things are coming to the fore in South China Sea, Senkaku/Diaoyu etc. But the fact remains, the Chinese don't make a move until they feel they will come out on top. They may be wrong in their assessment, but they are usually not rash.

In '71 they were not so confident. Despite trumping India in '62, the Chinese would be well aware that if not for the internal sabotage of malevolent men like V.K. Krishna Menon, things would not have been so easy for them.

WOW!!!!!

Please let this whole forum know whether you are Pakistani or Indian. This post is so pro-India, that one gets a feeling that an Indian is speaking.

 

[Saahil84]

WOW!!!!!

Please let this whole forum know whether you are Pakistani or Indian. This post is so pro-India, that one gets a feeling that an Indian is speaking.

I just happen to like reading - a lot. When one does that, one tends to find sympathy for various perspectives.

 

[Saahil84]

I asked you simply for the source. Isn't it norm of forum discussions ??

Next what , Pakistan is spacefareing nation. When asked for source then get personal.


You can give thousands of excuses but fact remains unchanged, even your Ummah and west couldn't save you .


Looser's last resort is to get personal to show his frustration.

Now shooo... and stop bothering me with your nonsense.

Hmm...it seems there were no sanctions on Pakistan at the time. I do not have sufficient privileges to post links here, but just Google "history of US sanctions on Pakistan". The second link is informative.

The first limited sanctions appeared in 1977. From what I know, US-Pakistan relations were quite good under Ayub Khan. It was under Zulfikar Bhutto's "Socialist" regime that things first soured a bit. Of course, General Zia set all that right, didn't he?

 

[SwAggeR]

Hmm...it seems there were no sanctions on Pakistan at the time. I do not have sufficient privileges to post links here, but just Google "history of US sanctions on Pakistan". The second link is informative.

The first limited sanctions appeared in 1977. From what I know, US-Pakistan relations were quite good under Ayub Khan. It was under Zulfikar Bhutto's "Socialist" regime that things first soured a bit. Of course, General Zia set all that right, didn't he?

Yes there was actually arms embargo due to their belligerece in 1965 inspired by the Chinese success couple of years back, when they wanted to pounce on Indian administered Kashmir just like China successfully did. They thought India is war torn and it's their bright chance to wrest Kashmir away.

I was indirectly just forcing him to mention the reason and actual date of embargo.