Why India Can't Win 21st Century WAR

[fast and furious]

It means you totally lost 1965 war which you think in your dreams you won....
YouTube - 1965 Indian Attack Lahore - 1965 War Documentary - Pakistan,India - Part 2

also search for those videos in which pak army was in pathan kot india so what debacle.........

Lets not get into the exact losses and the territory captured.

I am sorry what part of India did you capture and never returned back ?
or what did you break away from India?

Ever thought why the peace accord was signed in Tashkent(erstwhile USSR) and not USA.

Hint-The party that wins/stronger chooses the neutral territory they will meet at for negotiations.I didnt know you were so close to USSR in 1965.

Go figure.

 

[sanibhagwan]

While many in Pakistan believe that 65' war was won by Pakistani armed forces. But neutral and US govt (Department of State) records show, pakistan actually lost the war. Either you have to dispute the claims of United states state department or verify the claims of your armed forces.

Independence
With the death in 1948 of its first head of state, Muhammad Ali Jinnah, and the assassination in 1951 of its first prime minister, Liaqat Ali Khan, political instability and economic difficulty became prominent features of post-independence Pakistan. On October 7, 1958, President Iskander Mirza, with the support of the army, suspended the 1956 Constitution, imposed martial law, and canceled the elections scheduled for January 1959. Twenty days later, the military sent Mirza into exile to Britain, and Gen. Mohammad Ayub Khan assumed control of a military dictatorship. After Pakistan's loss in the 1965 war against India, Ayub Khan's power declined. Subsequent political and economic grievances inspired agitation movements that compelled his resignation in March 1969. He handed over responsibility for governing to the commander in chief of the army, General Agha Mohammed Yahya Khan, who became President and Chief Martial Law Administrator.

 

[CardSharp]

While many in Pakistan believe that 65' war was won by Pakistani armed forces. But neutral and US govt (Department of State) records show, pakistan actually lost the war. Either you have to dispute the claims of United states state department or verify the claims of your armed forces.

I'm sure they'll admit defeat in 65' when you guys admit India provoked China in 62'.

 

[Kyusuibu Honbu]

I'm sure they'll admit defeat in 65' when you guys admit India provoked China in 62'.

1965 was more of a stalemate.

 

[third eye]

I'm sure they'll admit defeat in 65' when you guys admit India provoked China in 62'.

Where is the connection ?

A red herring ?

 

[CardSharp]

Whatever the hypocrisy of the situation irks me.

 

[ganimi kawa]

Whatever the hypocrisy of the situation irks me.

Not expected from you, mate!

You are better than that!

1965 was more of a stalemate.

It was an imposed stalemate (by the higher powers). India could not continue the campaign to its logical end!

 

[CardSharp]

Not expected from you, mate!

You are better than that!

Wouldn't you find it frustrating if some of the noobies here insisting on neutral sourcing for certain wars and not others?

Whatever I'll let it go. I just think these "I won, No! I won" debate to be pointless.

 

[Jackdaws]

It means you totally lost 1965 war which you think in your dreams you won....
YouTube - 1965 Indian Attack Lahore - 1965 War Documentary - Pakistan,India - Part 2

also search for those videos in which pak army was in pathan kot india so what debacle.........

Gibberish. Pakistan lost in '65 - and that is what neutral sources say. Pakistanis are free to believe whatever they want. Their govt. loves taking them for a ride. I've even heard Pakistanis claim (in all seriousness) that angels descended from the heavens and helped Pakistani Army in 1965.

 

[sensenreason]

I'm sure they'll admit defeat in 65' when you guys admit India provoked China in 62'.

I admit that India played a role in provoking China. Ok?

 

[JayAtl]

It would be be naive to not recognize that PAK had some great ground victories in 65' and equally naive to think it was one sided. The advantage of having American military hardware was also a painful lesson learned for India.

However, its not how to start it but where you finish: The war was heading for a stalemate, with both nations holding territory of the other. The Indian army suffered 3,000 battlefield deaths, while Pakistan suffered 3,800. The Indian army was in possession of 710 miles of Pakistani territory and the Pakistan army held 210 mile of Indian territory. The territory occupied by India was mainly in the fertile Sialkot, Lahore and Kashmir sectors, while Pakistani land gains were primarily south in deserts opposite to Sindh and in Chumb sector near Kashmir in north.

 

[Jackdaws]

I'm sure they'll admit defeat in 65' when you guys admit India provoked China in 62'.

Inadvertently, yes - India did provoke China. Both sides mistook the intentions of the other and over reacted. The stupid Forward Policy of Nehru and then his ridiculous speech of "My heart goes out to people of the North East" contributed more to China whooping us than anything else.

 

[justanobserver]

It would be be naive to not recognize that PAK had some great ground victories in 65' and equally naive to think it was one sided. The advantage of having American military hardware was also a painful lesson learned for India.

However, its not how to start it but where you finish: The war was heading for a stalemate, with both nations holding territory of the other. The Indian army suffered 3,000 battlefield deaths, while Pakistan suffered 3,800. The Indian army was in possession of 710 miles of Pakistani territory and the Pakistan army held 210 mile of Indian territory. The territory occupied by India was mainly in the fertile Sialkot, Lahore and Kashmir sectors, while Pakistani land gains were primarily south in deserts opposite to Sindh and in Chumb sector near Kashmir in north.

Yeah but Pak's strategic objective was to capture Kashmir, and they started the war (their own general said it on live TV). Not meeting objectives=losing the war

 

[ganimi kawa]

Wouldn't you find it frustrating if some of the noobies here insisting on neutral sourcing for certain wars and not others?

Whatever I'll let it go. I just think these "I won, No! I won" debate to be pointless.

Yup! That can indeed be frustrating. It's the essential bane that comes with the boon of internet forums.

But the fact remains that I and many like me read every post that carries your name with extra attention expecting great content in each one of them......

You have some responsibility towards us too!

P.S. Love to know your take on 65 war.

 

[CardSharp]

Yup! That can indeed be frustrating. It's the essential bane that comes with the boon of internet forums.

But the fact remains that I and many like me read every post that carries your name with extra attention expecting great content in each one of them......

You have some responsibility towards us too!

P.S. Love to know your take on 65 war.

You give me too much credit but I'll keep that in mind for the future.

As for the 65 war, I have no opinion because it is hard to find reliable scholarship on the subject. As with subjects that are still a matter of pride, there is very little that is dispassionately written.

But I will give a general impression of Indo-Pakistani wars. India won many tactical victories but usually squandered them or failed to translate them into political victories. (usually due to poor civilian leadership lacking a vision of what they want to achieve)