India-China border clash 1962

Email Me When A New Comment Is Made
Show Only Poster Name and Title Newest to Oldest

Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 NEXT

PeregrinePike RE:India-China border clash 1962 1/3/2006 4:58:36 PM

We (Indians) lost. Big deal... we are more used to losing than winning. 1. It was the first time India was attacked from the East rather than North-West. 2. It was the end result of naiive weltpolitik on part of Indian leadership to trust the Chinese. 3. It was an unnecessarily brutal (and in the long run - self-poisonous) action on the part of Chinese leadership. 4. Chinese had a battle-hardened organization (from Mao down to lowest privates) moving in from the recently concluded Korean War -- that was the single biggest factor in contributing to Chinese victory. My conclusion is that, based on this, Indian policy-makers should similarly use the various insurgencies and UN Peacekeeping Ops to vaccinate itself. Prepare for war to preserve the peace...

Quote Reply

YelliChink RE:India-China border clash 1962 1/3/2006 5:16:42 PM

But it didn't explain that why Indian army act relatively well in Kashmir to stop commie forces and totally overrun in the east front. As far as I know, Indian forces were not prepared, the intelligence also failed, the defense is not constructed, troop deployment was terrible. Is this due to leadership problem (in theater level), or a faillure in national strategy (low alertness and lack of intelligence)? IAF is always more advanced, better equiped and better trained to PLAAF even to this day, but why didn't IAF conduct any meaningful operation to bomb into Tibet?

Quote Reply

musloko-maro RE:India-China border clash 1962 1/3/2006 5:17:04 PM

P.P. You have obviously forgotten or failed to mention, by name(s) the arch culprits of this disastrous debacle, a cruel betrayal. Start with the queer-mixture-of- -East-and-West, the Kashmiri-lotus eater, the syphillitic playboy, commie-posterboy-high-flyer Pandit Jawahar Lal Nehru and Vengalil Krishnan Krishna Menon, the London School of Economics trained commie namak haraam madharchod In 1948, Sardar Vallabhai Patel and his trusted assistant V.P. Menon ably assisted by the then Home Secretary H V R Iyengar, prevailed upon Nehru, to direct both the Communist-Maoist Chinese and K.M.T. China's Chiang Kaishek, that whoever succeeds in the Chinese power struggle to quit all claims over Tibet, NEFA, border garrisons, etc. This minute of the Cabinet Committe went to the newly appointed Indian Governal General Rajagopalchari in June 1948! But Rajaji, wrote back to Sardar V.P. Patel, that for him to take action as Head of (Indian) State, the Cabinet needs to endorse it in a full majority! But the Cabinet of the Dominion of India, was a chosen puppet of J. Nehru, except for V. Patel! Nehru to gain comraderie of the Soviets and the Chinks, gifted away Tibet and all the six border garrissons, etc., etc., on a golden plattter, and did bend over to the slit-eyed-chinks, who did brutally sosdomise Nehru with no lubricants on his arse! Even from the days of Ashoka thru the Brits, India had military garrisons. Rest is history!

Quote Reply

PeregrinePike RE:India-China border clash 1962 1/3/2006 5:49:25 PM

1. I would expect Indian troops in Kashmir were better acclamatized and equipped to fight a war than the troops in North-East because they were positioned to actually fight the Pakistanis in case of a rerun of 1948. This again reinforces my conclusion #4 from last post. 2. Indian leadership from Delhi was sending contradictory messages to the theater leadership. Sometimes they would order leaving strategic positions to make a statement of peace; then they would re-inforce their stupidity by making their "presence" known in un-defendable places. 3. Mao's instructions were quite simple on the other hand. It was simply to envelop every single Indian force and wait for the Indians to either retreat or move into vulnerable position. The fighting began only when the PLA leadership was confident enough it could roll in the dice. 4. Indian troops were assured they wouldnt be fighting fellow-anti-imperialist Chinese PLA. Just days before fighting began mountain accalamatized troops were given leave, and new plainsmen brought in. Chinese OTOH were bringing in veterans from Korean winter. Indian military-industry was trying to make fighters and tanks while men had Enfield .303s; you can imagine putting .303s against PLA SKS and AKs. At Company level Chinese had lot more firepower on hand than Indians. 5. Using IAF could have conceivably won the war for Indians. But the IAF was mainly British in its origin of parts -- and thus open to foreign influence. US made a deal with India to air-supply soldiers as long as IAF wasnt used. Indians had to accept that because the key word was >>conceivably won<< only history is 20/20. We might have needed American co-operation if Mao hadnt withdrawn - so we had to be on their good side. Little did we know that Americans were already planning to prop up PRC against USSR, and feared more for stability of PRC in case of a defeat at hands of India. 6. It was equal parts failure of the national strategy as theater failures. Of course it is very easy to blame a single politician and his cabinet rather than blaming hundreds of faceless incompetent Majors and Lt. Colonels. And its is more "patriotic" to back our troops - right or wrong. But it is my belief that Mao let his field-grade officers handle the war -- and we could most effectively and cheaply countered if our own field-grade officers were up to the task.

Quote Reply

musloko-maro RE:India-China border clash 1962 1/4/2006 4:09:45 PM

[This post from PP has much better light, but it is milder in apportioning the blame(responsibility) on nehru] 1. I would expect Indian troops in Kashmir were better acclamatized and equipped to fight a war than the troops in North-East because they were positioned to actually fight the Pakistanis in case of a rerun of 1948. This again reinforces my conclusion #4 from last post. Yes, to a larger extent! In fact, I had voiced similar views, that could be referenced from of the back posts in these fora. My stronger view would be that the 1947-48 Kashmir defence would be a shadow of what happened in 1962 with what the slit-eyed-barbarians gave us, a bloody nose! Especially a confidence-trust-faith busting to smithereens! 2. Indian leadership from Delhi was sending contradictory messages to the theater leadership. Sometimes they would order leaving strategic positions to make a statement of peace; then they would re-inforce their stupidity by making their "presence" known in un-defendable places. Come on, P.P., you can do better than this! Pray, what was the "Indian leadership" sans the strong arm tactics of the Kashmiri syphillitic playboy? Had it not been for Sardar V.P., India would lost about 40% of it northern areas![Gen K.S. Thimmayya and his wife Nina Thimmayya's diaries] What happened was, Nehru could not stomach the idea of Sardar V.P. taking the lead on many matters, let alone throwing the gauntlet at the Chinks or Pakis! Reason: Sardar was busy in reconstructing/renovating the Somnath Mandirs, much to the horror of Nehru! Nehru called these as Hindu revivalism[Kanhaiyalal Manecklal Munshi's letters in Bhavan's Journal] 3. Mao's instructions were quite simple on the other hand. It was simply to envelop every single Indian force and wait for the Indians to either retreat or move into vulnerable position. The fighting began only when the PLA leadership was confident enough it could roll in the dice. Well, I would not blame Mao or even his eunuch sidekick Chou-en-Lai, but on India's top leadership! Read Jawaharlal Nehru, none others. He shelved, ignored all caution and wise counsels(Gen Thimmayya & Gen Rajendrasinhji) The PLA had nothing to lose, and were venturing into virgin Indian territory, that was never under the chinks' for all these centuries. Further, the rusted Indian army with outdated weapons, was no match to the aggressive PLA, who were all country barbarians, who would do anything that was thrown at them. Failure was 10000% at the political level from 1947/48 by Nehru, who never had the foresight to guage anything disastrous! 4. Indian troops were assured they wouldnt be fighting fellow-anti-imperialist Chinese PLA. Just days before fighting began mountain accalamatized troops were given leave, and new plainsmen brought in. Chinese OTOH were bringing in veterans from Korean winter. Indian military-industry was trying to make fighters and tanks while men had Enfield .303s; you can imagine putting .303s against PLA SKS and AKs. At Company level Chinese had lot more firepower on hand than Indians. Thanks, no disagreement! 5. Using IAF could have conceivably won the war for Indians. But the IAF was mainly British in its origin of parts -- and thus open to foreign influence. US made a deal with India to air-supply soldiers as long as IAF wasnt used. Indians had to accept that because the key word was >>conceivably won<< only history is 20/20. We might have needed American co-operation if Mao hadnt withdrawn - so we had to be on their good side. Little did we know that Americans were already planning to prop up PRC against USSR, and feared more for stability of PRC in case of a defeat at hands of India. Would the IAF been effective even with the state of the art armament of those days, in those terrains of snowy ice? Nehru would not have touched any U.S. aid/weaponry even with a barge pole, for he was sworn life long anti-american marxian-socilaist from his days in Inner Temple(barrister) 6. It was equal parts failure of the national strategy as theater failures. Of course it is very easy to blame a single politician and his cabinet rather than blaming hundreds of faceless incompetent Majors and Lt. Colonels. And its is more "patriotic" to back our troops - right or wrong. But it is my belief that Mao let his field-grade officers handle the war -- and we could most effectively and cheaply countered if our own field-grade officers were up to the task. Exactly, and this is what they did. VKK Menon and his commies, with the help of pro-left press in India, did gang up on middle level officer cadre in the Indian army, most of whom were on the limbo, since the waning days of WWII. There was lesser political influence in the army's decisions in 1947/48(Kashmir) but a fatal one was made in halting the process of throwing out, completely the Afridi tribseman. But from 1957 onwards, with VKK

Quote Reply

Jawan RE:India-China border clash 1962 1/5/2006 4:34:15 AM

Here is a Prespective!!! link The real STORY and not the one propogated by China and its STooges (read Nevile etc.)

Quote Reply

rogue RE:India-China border clash 1962 1/7/2006 11:19:48 PM

Hi, I'm new to the forum. I think jawan's link was a good read. Do u think the result will be significantly different this time around, if china decides to attack us?

Quote Reply

mithradates RE:India-China border clash 1962 1/8/2006 1:34:19 AM

"Do u think the result will be significantly different this time around, if china decides to attack us?" Most unlikely. India lost PRIMARILY due to 2 reasons: 1. Poor interservice cooperation. Indian infantry couldn't cooperate with artillery. And the airforce simply wasn't used at all. 2. Indian politicians likes to meddle in the affairs of her generals. These 2 reasons are as valid as they were in 1962.

Quote Reply

Jawan RE:India-China border clash 1962 1/8/2006 4:31:30 AM

The result would be VASTLY different this TIME. PLA got the taste of what was coming in skirmishes in 1967 and 1986 or so. They know now its near to impossible to mess around with the Tibet-India Border. That is why so much talk of peace initatives and amicably resolving border issues coming out from CHINA. No Nehru or Menon in Picture here. Now India understands the meaning of "HINDI-CHINI BHAI BHAI". PLA will be whoopped double time if it tries to mess around this time and IAF wont be sitting this time around!!!!

Quote Reply

rogue RE:India-China border clash 1962 1/8/2006 10:58:25 AM

i think it will be different too. 1) IAF will not be just sitting, and the coordination among the three services has improved a lot. 2) India will not be taken by surprise this time round. That was a pretty big factor.

Quote Reply

1 2 3 4 5 NEXT