Bush Will Be Remembered for his Wars








bush

 

 

 

In a few days, the most powerful man on earth is stepping down for good. For almost a decade, he maneuvered America toward tough, record-breaking economic challenges,  post-9/11 recovery, and of course two historic wars.

For most Americans, George W. Bush leaves with a legacy that is highly questionable mainly because the superpower country is less prosperous and more problematic now than Bill Clinton’s or any other recent administration. It may be hard to condemn or judge him as he faced a lot tougher choices than his predecessor but those choices will forever be carved in history as some of the most unimpressive choices of a US President.

Bush will be remembered more for the two major wars he waged against suspected terrorism-embracing countries than for working to make the world a better place. He insists  that he made the planet safer with his actions most especially America, but do we believe in him? Does America believe in him?

Whatever his reasons are, the point is what did America get from Afghanistan? What goodness did the Iraq War serve? If it’s human life that he defended, why did we see thousands of innocent civilians soaking in blood and why is the world still unsafe up to now?  

I want to know the answers Mr. President.

 

INDO-PAKISTANI WAR OF 1971

Map of Kashmir Region

Above: Map of Kashmir Region

It was a major war between India and Pakistan, which finally led to the Bangladesh Liberation War or the Pakistani Civil War. Exact dates are under dispute. The battle in western India from 3rd to 16th December 1971 is termed the Indo-Pakistani war by both India and Bangladesh. Within two weeks Pakistan suffered a humiliating defeat.

Picture of Sheik Mujibur Rahman

Above: Picture of Sheik Mujibur Rahman

LIBERARTION WAR OF BANGLADESH:
The Bangladesh Liberation War was the main cause behind the Indo-Pakistani conflict. The former was an outburst of the tensions between the dominant West Pakistanis and the majority of Bengalis in East Pakistan. Sparks began to fly with the victory of the Awami League in the 1970 elections in Pakistan. It won 167 of the 169 seats in East Pakistan thus securing a simple majority in the 313-seat Lower House of the Pakistani Parliament. Mujibur Rahman, the leader of the Awami League presented six points and claimed the right to form a government. The leader of Pakistan’s Peoples Party, Bhutto, refused to allow Mujibur Rahman to become the Prime Minister and President Yahya Khan summoned military action – the military largely consisting of men from West Pakistan.

Awami League in protest march

Above: Awami League protest march

Dissidents began to be arrested en masse and East Pakistani soldiers and police personnel began to be disbanded. There were strikes and non-cooperation movements and soon the military began to take action on Dhaka from the night of 25th March 1971. The Awami League was declared illegal and several members fled to exile. Mujib was arrested and taken to West Pakistan. On 27th March 1971, Ziaur Rahman, a Major in the Pakistani army rebelled and declared the independence of Pakistan on behalf of Mujibur. The exiled Awami League leaders formed a government in exile in April in Badyanathtola of Meherpur. The East Pakistan Rifles, an elite paramilitary forced, defected and extended support the new government. The Bangladesh Army took shape with the support of civilian guerillas.

Refugees fleed passing through dead brethren

Above: Refugees fleed, walking through dead brethren

LIBERATION WAR OF BANGLADESH – INDIA’S INVOLVEMENT:
Indira Gandhi, the then Prime Minister of India, extended full support to Bangladesh on 27th March 1971. Bangladesh-India border came to be opened. Frightened citizens ran to India for shelter. The Indian provinces of West Bengal, Bihar, Assam, Meghalaya and Tripura opened border refugee camps. Exiled Bangladeshi officers and Indian volunteers immediately set about to recruit and train freedom fighters of the Mukti Bahini guerillas.
With the intensification of massacres on East Pakistan, an estimated 10 million refugees fled to India starting of a chain of economic and social instability in the host country. The USA, an old friend and ally, continued to materially help West Pakistan.

Picture of Indira Ghandi - The First Lady Prime Minister in India

Above: Picture of Indira Ghandi - First lady Prime Minister in India

In the middle of 1971 Indira Gandhi began diplomatic maneuvers by touring Europe. She was able to win over both UK and France to block USA in any pro Pakistani moves in the UN. Gandhi’s trump card was the signature of a 22-year treaty of friendship and cooperation with the Soviet Union. A stunned USA saw India given the assurance that China would not be involved in the conflict. So far China had been giving moral support to Pakistan but little in terms of military aid. China did not move her troops further into India.

Mukti Bahini - Freedom Fighters of India

Above: Formation of the freedom fighters Mukti Bahini

Meanwhile activities of the Mukti Bahini began to tell upon the Pakistani Army. But the swell of refugees rushing to India turned into a tide causing immense pressure. India became more involved by supplying weapons and training to the Mukti Bahini and began to take part in the shelling of East Pakistani targets.

Map of Pakistan and its border from India and Iran

Above: map of Pakistan and its border from India and Iran (click map to enlarge)

INDIA’S OFFICIAL ENGAGEMENT WITH PAKISTAN:
By November there was a huge build up of Indian forces on the border. War seemed imminent. India was just waiting for the rains to cease to allow for freer movement. Moreover snow and ice would close the mountain passes thus stalling Chinese intervention. On 23rd November Yahya Khan declared Emergency asking the people to be ready for war.

Submarine operation

Above: Picture of submarine in operation

Sunday 3rd December – in the evening Pakistan attacked eight air fields in northwest India. The inspiration behind this operation was Israeli success in the Arab-Israel Six Day War. The lesson gained was to strike without warning. But in this case the Indians were ready. The raid proved a failure. In a counter attack the Indians proved their superiority. In the east India joined hands with the Mukti Bahini to form the Mitro Bahini (Allied Forces) and an impressive air, sea and land attack was made on East Pakistan.

Massacre under Yahya Khan’s reign

Above: Massacre during the reign of Yahya Khan

Yahya Khan swiftly tried to capture territory in the western zone so as to be in a bargaining position in the east. For Pakistan’s very existence as a united country the operation in the western zone was of vital importance. India however made rapid gains in the west by capturing 5,500 square miles of Pakistani territory. As a gesture of goodwill, by the Simla Agreement of 1972 India returned to Pakistan the regions she had gained in Pak occupied Kashmir and Pakistan-Punjab. India’s involvement in the Bangladesh war of liberation gave the deathblow to Pakistan’s existence in the eastern region.

“The Indian Army merely provided the coup de grace to what the people of Bangladesh had commenced–active resistance to the Pakistani Government and its Armed Forces on their soil.”

Indian Air Force assault in Pakistan

Above: Indian Air Force assault in Pakistan

The Indian Navy proved its superiority in the ocean by successfully carrying out Operation Trident – which was an assault on the Pakistani seaport of Karachi. Two of Pakistan’s Destroyers and one Minesweeper were destroyed in Operation Python. The Indian Navy made its presence felt in the Bay of Bengal also. The Indian Air Force conducted 4,000 sorties in the west but its counterpart in Pakistan could hardly retaliate. This was because hitherto the technical personnel had mainly been Bengalis. Another reason for defeat was that the PAF, riddled with losses because of its eastern operations was in no position to further worsen matters. In the east the small air contingent of PAF no 14 squadron was easily destroyed giving Indian Air Force undisputed mastery of the air space. Within only a fortnight Pakistan was brought to its knees. The Pakistani forces surrendered on 16th December. On 17th December India announced a unilateral cease-fire to which Pakistan agreed.

Picture of President Richard Nixon

Above: Picture of US former President Richard Nixon

INVOLVEMENT OF AMERICA AND SOVIET UNION:
Pakistan was supported politically and materially by USA. Nixon, backed by Kissinger was afraid of Soviet plans towards the south and southeast. Pakistan was close to China, with whom USA was looking for a rapprochement. A visit was scheduled for February 1972. Nixon reasoned that Indian victory over West Pakistan would lead to total influence of Soviet Union. It would seriously harm the global image of America as well as its new ally – China. In order to prove its credentials to China, Nixon directly violated the US congress imposed bans on Pakistan and sent military support via Jordan and Iran. Parallel to this action China was encouraged to supply arms to Pakistan. The Nixon administration turned a blind eye to reports about genocide in East Pakistan and even ignored the ‘blood telegram.’

US 7th fleet Aircraft Carrier heading to the Bay of Bengal

Above: US 7th fleet Aircraft Carrier heading to the Bay of Bengal

When no doubt remained about Pakistan’s defeat Nixon sent a naval ship, USS Enterprise to the Bay of Bengal on 11th December 1971. It was interpreted by India to be a nuclear threat. On 6th and 13th December, the Soviet Union dispatched from Vladivostok, two groups of ships containing nuclear arms as well as a submarine. From 18th December to 7th January 1972 the Soviet ships trailed the US task force.

Troops and refugees movement map

Above: Map of Bangladesh with troop and refugee route movements (click map to enlarge

Bangladesh had won the sympathies of the Soviet Union. The Communist country gave support to the Indian Army as well as to the Mukti Bahini. Soviet Union had reasoned that the independence of Bangladesh would weaken both USA and China. Therefore India was assured of Soviet Union’s support in the Indo-Soviet friendship treaty of August 1971.

Soldiers and Civilian brutally murdered during the war

Above: Soldier and Civilian brutally murdered during the war

RESULTS:
The immediate result was the surrender of Pakistan to the Mitro Bahini – joint forces of Bangladesh and India. Secondly Bangladesh was born as an independent nation – being the third largest Muslim country in the world. Pakistan’s military became demoralized and Yahya Khan had to resign. Bhutto replaced him. Released from West Pakistani prison, Mijibur Rahman returned to Dhaka on 10th January 1972. Approximately one to three millon people were killed during the war. Some however put the toll lower at 300,000.
Faced with imminent and sure defeat, on 14th December the Pakistani army together with local cohorts killed Bengali doctors, teachers and other intellectuals as part of their programme against Hindu minorities. The latter made up the majority of urban educated elite. Young men, seen as potential rebels, especially students were also targeted.

Picture of Indian Soldiers in prison

Above: Picture of Indian Soldiers in prison

A Pakistani stamp was issued showing 90,000 prisoners of war in Indian camps to of globalize the issue. Pakistan had to pay a heavy price in terms of man and money power. Tariq Ali in ‘Can Pakistan Survive/’ says that the country lost half its navy, quarter of its air force and a third of its army. India took about 93,000 prisoners of war including Pakistani soldiers and East Pakistani quislings. Some were family members of the military or Bihari razarkars. Of these 79,676 were uniformed – the break up being as follows:

1. Army – 55,692
2. Paramilitary – 16,354
3. Police – 5,296
4. Navy – 1,000
5. Air Force – 800

Below: Stamp imprinted with an image of prisoners

Stamp imprinted with prisoners image

Since the last World War this was the largest surrender. Initially India wanted to try them for war crimes and brutality in East Pakistan but ultimately they were released as a goodwill gesture. As part of the hand-shaking mood and desire for lasting peace, in the Simla Agreement about 13000 square kilometers of territory was returned to Pakistan.

IMPORTANT DATES:
• March 7, 1971: Declaration by Sheikh Mujibur Rahman that, “The current struggle is a struggle for independence”, in a public meeting attended by almost a million people in Dhaka.
• March 25, 1971: Start of Operation Searchlight to eliminate any resistance. In Dhaka thousands are killed in student dormitories and police barracks
• March 26, 1971: Major Ziaur Rahman declares independence over the radio from Chittagong. Indian radio stations relay the message globally.
• April 17, 1971: Provisional government formed by exiled Awami League leaders
• December 3, 1971: West Pakistan launches a series of preemptive air strikes on Indian airfields. Officially the war between the two countries begins.
• December 14, 1971: Pakistan army starts systematic extinction of intellectuals and quislings.
• December 16, 1971: Lieutenant-General A. A. K. Niazi, supreme commander of Pakistani Army in East Pakistan, surrenders to the Allied Forces (Mitro Bahini) represented by Lieutenant General Aurora of Indian Army. Bangladesh gains independence.

INDO-PAKISTANI WAR OF 1965

Map of Pakistan during the Second Kashmir War

Above: Map of Pakistan during the Second Kashmir War

The Indo-Pakistani War of 1965, or Second Kashmir War, was the culmination of a series of hostilities that occurred between April 1965 and September 1965 between India and Pakistan. The war was the second one fought between India and Pakistan over Kashmir, the first having been fought in 1947. The war lasted for five weeks, resulted in thousands of casualties on both sides and it ended in a United Nations (UN) ordered ceasefire.

Scene during the Second Kashmir war

Above: Scene during the Second Kashmir War

It is generally accepted that the war began following the failure of Pakistan’s Operation Gibraltar’ which was designed to infiltrate and invade Jammu and Kashmir. Land forces along the International Border running in Kashmir between India and Pakistan mainly fought the war. The air forces of both countries also participated. This war saw the largest amassing of troops. This number was overshadowed only during 2001/2002 standoffs. Many details remain unclear and riddles with media biases.

Runn of Kutch - region of mudflats and salt marshes in western India and southern Pakistan

Above: Runn of Kutch - region of mudflats and salt marshes in western India and southern Pakistan (click map to enlarge)

A declassified US Sate department telegram confirms the existence of innumerable ‘infiltrators’ in the Indian state of Jammu and Kashmir. This was just before the 1965 war.
Fighting broke out in the barren region of the Rann of Kutch in Gujarat province.
Initially border police broke into skirmishes but it soon escalated into a full scale armed operation starting from 20th March and then again from April 1965. In June that year, British Premier Harold Wilson persuaded both countries to cease hostilities and set up a tribunal to resolve disputes. The verdict in 1968 saw Pakistan gaining only 350 square miles/900 square kilometers of the against Pakistan’s original claim of 3500 square miles.

Picture of Field Marshal Ayub Khan

Above: Picture of Field Marshal Ayub Khan

The success in the Rann of Kutch made Pakistan under General Ayub Khan believe that India would not be able to stand up to a quick military campaign in Kashmir following her defeat in the Indo-Chinese war in 1962.Pakistan also thought that the general public of Kashmir were discontented with Indian rule and as such only a few infiltrators could easily spark off a resistance movement. The code name for this was ‘Operation Gibraltar’. Pakistan expressed concerns of Indian attempts to absorb Kashmir (a state under dispute) by articles 356 and 357 of the Indian Constitution by which President’s Rule could be declared. However lack of support from its ally the USA, with whom had been signed an Agreement of Cooperation, took Pakistan by surprise. Refusing to aid Pakistan the USA cut off military supplies to both sides. Indian troops took control of Pakistan’s vital link – the Ichhogil Canal.

Indian Troops occupied and captured Haji Pir pass during Indo-Pakistani War 1965

Above: Indian Troops occupied and captured Haji Pir pass during Operation Gibraltar in Indo-Pakistani War 1965

The war
Crossing the cease-fire line India launched an attack on Pakistan-administered Kashmir marking the official start of the war. Pakistan reported this attack to be an unprovoked one. India said that it was in response to a massive armed infiltration. Initially India met with considerable success in the northern sector of Kashmir. Prolonged artillery barrage led to the capture of three important mountain positions. However by the end of the month both sides were on even footing. Pakistan had made gains in Tithwal, Uri and Punch. India had captured the Haji Pir Pass, eight km inside Pakistan-occupied territory. Following the failure of Operation Gibraltar, Pakistan launched a bold counter attack on 1st September 1965 to reclaim vital posts in Kashmir previously lost to India. This attack, known as ‘Operation Grand Slam’ was intended to capture the strategic town of Akhnoor in Jammu. Vital supply lines of the Indian army would have been cut off. Attacking with much superior troops and tanks Pakistan sprung a surprise and India suffered heavy losses. India now used air attacks on Pakistani southern sector. Pakistan retaliated in the air against both Kashmir and Punjab regions. But Pakistani ground forces were unable to follow up the advantage and capture any town. Operation Grand Slam failed. The tide turned. India kept the heat on and attacked further south.

Bridge accross Ichhogil Canal destroyed by Pakistan Army before retreating

Above: Bridge accross Ichhogil Canal destroyed by Pakistan Army before retreating

On 6th September India crossed the Western International Border (IB). Some claim this to be the official start of the war. Under World War II veteran, Major General Prasad, the 15th infantry of the Indian army battled a massive counter attack by Pakistan near the west bank of Ichhogil Canal (BRB Canal) which was the de facto border. The General’s entourage was ambushed and he was forced to flee. The second attempt to cross the canal over a bridge near Barki village, just east of Lahore, was successful. Lahore International Airport came within range of the Indian arm. Hastily USA requested a temporary cease-fire to allow evacuation of its citizens. A unit of the Jat regiment had crossed the canal and captured Batapore town (Jallo Mur to Pakistan) on the west side of the canal – thus threatening Lahore at the very start of the war.

Indian troops in Dograi village on the Ichhogil Canal, Lahore

Above: Indian troops in Dograi village on the Ichhogil Canal, Lahore

On the same day a counter offensive both on land and air (Air Force Sabers) was launched against the Indian 15th division forcing it to fall back on its starting point. 3 Jat suffered minor causalities but the bulk of the damage was borne by ammunition and stores vehicles. The higher commanders however did not know about the capture of the Jats of Batapore. Misleading information led to the withdrawal from Batapore and Dograi to Ghosal-Dial. Lt. Col Desmond Hayde, CO of 3 Jat was extremely disappointed. After a more severe struggle because of Pakistani reinforcements, 3 Jat eventually recaptured Dograi on 21st September for the second time.

Destroyed Pakistani Tanks parked in Patton Nagar

Above: Destroyed Pakistani Tanks parked in Patton Nagar

On the days following 9th September the premiere formations of both nations were routed in unequal battles. India’s 1st Armored Division known as the ‘Pride of the Indian Army’ launched an offensive towards Sialkot by dividing into two prongs. Coming under heavy Pakistani fire at Taroah it had to withdraw. Similarly Pakistan’s pride, the 1st Armored Division took up an offensive towards Khemkaran with the aim of capturing Amritsar and the bridge on the River Beas en route to Jalandhar. They could not get past Khem Karan and by 10th September lay disintegrated under the India’s 4th Mountain Division at the Battle of Asal Uttar (Real Answer). The area came to be Patton Nagar (Patton Town) as Pakistan abandoned nearly 100 tanks named Patton.

Indian Soldier corpse

Above: more casualties during the war

The war was heading for a stalemate with both nations holding territory of the other. India suffered the loss of 3000 on the field while Pakistan suffered no less than 3,800. India came to occupy 710 miles (1,840 square miles) of Pakistani territory while the latter held 210 miles (545 square miles) of Indian territory, mostly in Chumb in the north sector.

Map for Dwarka’s location

Above: Map for Dwarka’s location (click map to enlarge)

NAVAL HOSTILITIES:
Neither the Indian nor Pakistani navy had a prominent role to play in the 1965 war. Under the name of Operation Dwarka, on 7th September a Pakistani flotilla bombarded the coastal town of Dwarka, (200 miles (300 km) of Pakistan’s Karachi) and its radar station. India did not immediately retaliate but sent a fleet to patrol the region to deter further aggression.

Picture of Pakistan Army in 1965

Above: Picture of Pakistan army in 1965

Some Pakistan sources claim that one submarine, PNS Ghazi, kept an aircraft of the Indian naval aircraft carrier, INS Vikrant, under siege off Bombay throughout the war. Indian sources say that the latter did not want any naval conflict but to keep it restricted to land battles. Moreover the ship was being refitted on dry dock and was not deployed. Even Pakistan defense writers have dismissed the idea as a myth that the India Navy was kept bottled up by a single submarine! They say that 75% of the naval ships were undergoing maintenance in the harbor. There were unconfirmed reports that further south, towards Bombay, the Indian Navy attacked American-supplied submarines that were being used by Pakistan.

Picture of Indian prisoners playing three legged race inside prison camp

Above: Picture of Indian prisoners playing three-legged race inside prison camp

COVERT OPERATIONS:
Pakistan launched some secret operations to infiltrate and sabotage Indian air bases. According to Pakistan’s Chief of Army Staff, General Musa Khan, about 135 commandos of the Special Services (SSG) parachuted into three airfields. The targets were Halwara, Pathankot and Adampur – all deep inside India. As such only 22 commandos made it back alive. Thus the operation failed. 93 were taken prisoners and 20 were killed by either the military, police or civilians. Even by Pakistani accounts the attempt was an ‘unmitigated disaster’ especially when one of the commanders, Major Khalid Khan, was taken captive. But Pakistan claim that it did have an impact on Indian plans. 14 divisions were diverted to hunt for the paratroopers. When the PAF found the road filled with transport they destroyed many vehicles. They attributed the failure to lack of proper maps, briefing, planning and preparation. Apprehending an Indian retaliation on Pakistani air bases, the SSG commandos fired innumerable rounds of small arms ammunition at imaginary Indian commandos!

Destroyed Pakistani M4A1 Sherman Tank

Above: Picture of a Destroyed Pakistani M4A1 Sherman Tank

INDO-PAK TANK BATTLES:

International Assessment:
The 1965 war witnessed the largest tank battles since World War II. In its Patton tank Pakistan was numerically and technically at a better advantage than India. India’s M4 Sherman tanks were not quite up to the mark in comparison to the Patton. The Pakistani Sherman tank with 90 mm guns was superior to the India Sherman tank with 75 mm guns. But the performance of Indian tank crews far outclassed their Pakistani counterparts.

Losses:
India and Pakistan hold widely divergent claims on the damage inflicted on each other. The following summarizes each nation’s claims.

Indian claims[18]

Pakistani claims[19]

Independent Sources[5][20]

Casualties

-

-

2763 Indian soldiers, 3800 Pakistani soldiers

Combat flying effort

4073+ combat sorties

2279 combat sorties

Aircraft lost

35 IAF (official), 73 PAF.Other sources[21] based on the Official Indian Armed Forces History[22] put actual IAF losses at 71 including 19 accidents (non combat sortie rate is not known) and PAF’s combat losses alone at 43.

19 PAF, 104 IAF

20 PAF, Pakistan claims India rejected neutral arbitration,[23] India retorts that the neutral arbitration by John Fricker was nothing but a commissioned work. (Singh, Pushpindar (1991). Fiza ya, Psyche of the Pakistan Air Force. Himalayan Books. ISBN 8170020387. )

Aerial victories

17 + 3 (post war)

30

-

Tanks destroyed

128 Indian tanks,[24] 152 Pakistani tanks captured, 150 Pakistani tanks destroyed.[24] Officially 471 Pakistani tanks destroyed and 38 captured[25]

165 Pakistan tank, ?? Indian tanks

200 Pakistani tanks

Land area won

1,500 mi2 (2,400 km2) of Pakistani territory

2,000 mi² (3,000 km²) of Indian territory

India held 710 mi² (1,840 km²) of Pakistani territory and Pakistan held 210 mi² (545 km²) of Indian territory

Neutral assessments:
• USA – LIBRARY OF CONGRESS COUNTRY STUDIES
The war was at the point of stalemate when the UN Security Council unanimously passed a resolution on September 20 that called for a cease-fire. New Delhi accepted the cease-fire resolution on September 21 and Islamabad on September 22, and the war ended on September 23. The Indian side lost 3,000 while the Pakistani side suffered 3,800 battlefield deaths.”
• ‘INDIA’ – STANLEY WOLPERT
• “In three weeks the second IndoPak War ended in what appeared to be a draw when the embargo placed by Washington on U.S. ammunition and replacements for both armies forced cessation of conflict before either side won a clear victory. India, however, was in a position to inflict grave damage to, if not capture, Pakistan’s capital of the Punjab when the cease-fire was called, and controlled Kashmir’s strategic Uri-Poonch bulge, much to Ayub’s chagrin.”

Picture of the Prime Minister Lal Bahadur Sashtri

Above: Picture of Prime Minister Lal Bahadur Shastri

Ceasefire:

On 22nd September United Nation’s Security Council asked of both nations to an uncontrolled cease-fire. The war ended on the 23rd. Kosygin of the Soviet Union brokered it at Tashkent (now in Uzbekistan) in the presence of India’s Prime Minister Lal Bahadur Shastri and Pakistan’s Ayub Khan. Both countries were to withdraw to Pre-August lines not later than 25th February 1966. The criticism leveled against the agreement by hardliners in Pakistan was that the leaders had surrendered military gains. It was mainly the media in Pakistan, which highlighted this point. One of the recent books authored by an exISI chief of Pakistan titled ‘the Myth of 1965 Victory’ allegedly exposed Pakistani fabrications about the war. But being a ‘too sensitive’ issue its sale was blocked.

Fighter Planes lined up in Ambala Air Base at India

Above: Fighter Planes lined up in Ambala Air Base at India

India reported a number of ceasefire violations and alleged that Pakistan took advantage of it to capture the Indian village of Chananwalla in the Fazilka sector. It was recaptured on 25th December. On 10th October a B-57 Canberra of Pakistan was hit by 3 SA2 missile fired from Ambala air base of India. Pakistan claims that the pilot, Rashid Meer somehow flew it back but the nature of the damage was such that the plane was written off. On 16th December A Pakistani Armu Auster was shot down killing an army Captain. Again on 2nd February 1967 an AOP was shot down by the IAF.

The cease-fire was maintained for six years with relative peace reigning between the two neighbors. But in 1971 war broke out again.

General J.N. Chaudhuri presents silver replica of a Patton tank to Air Chief Marshal Arjan Singh

Above: Picture of General J.N. Chaudhuri presenting silver replica of a Patton tank to Air Chief Marshal Arjan Singh

The stalemate continued due to miscalculations by both nations. India failing to apprehend the presence of heavy Pakistani concentrations in Chumb, suffered losses. The ‘Official History of the 1965 War’ by the India’s Ministry of Defense had been kept suppressed mainly because it outlined the intelligence and strategic blunders of India. On 22nd September, when the Security Council, was talking of cease-fire the Indian Prime Minister was asking General Chaudhuri that by delaying acceptance of the offer could the war be won? The reply was that most of frontline ammunitions had been exhausted and many tanks had been lost. But later it was found that only 14% of the frontline ammunition had been fired and India still had double the number of tanks compared to Pakistan. On the other hand at that point Pakistan had exhausted nearly 80% of its ammunition. P.C.Lal the then Air Chief Marshal referred to the lack of coordination between the Indian army and air force. The war plans chalked out by the Defense Ministry and General Chaudhuri did not assign a specific role to the Air Force. Lal caustically termed Chaudhuri’s attitude as ‘Supremo Syndrome’. The Indian army seemed to have a patronizing attitude towards the other divisions of the armed forces.

Location of Sialkot and Lahore - Punjab Province Map

Above: Location of Sialkot and Lahore (Punjab Province Map)

PAKISTANI MISCALCULATIONS:
Pakistan’s failure started from the very beginning with the basic assumption that the Kashmiri people were so dissatisfied that they would spontaneously rise and revolt against India. All that was required was a spark. But on the contrary they leaked the information to the Indian Army about Operation Gibraltar who came to know that they were fighting not insurgents but the regular Pakistani army. Then again Pakistan failed to apprehend the possibility of India attacking the southern sector and opening up another front. So instead of penetrating further into Kashmir they had to rush to protect Sialkot and Lahore. Thirdly Operation Grand Slam intended to capture the strategic town of Akhnur lying to north east of Jammu to cause communication disruptions also failed. Many have blamed Ayub Khan for this wavering attitude. He knew very well that Akhnur was a jugular vein to India but he did not want a full-scale war on his hands. For some unexplained reason at a crucial moment he replaced the commanding Major General Akhtar Hussain Malik by General Yahya Khan. During the 24-hour lull India got enough time to recoup in Akhnur and successfully oppose an attack by Yahya Khan. “The enemy came to our rescue” said the Western Command Chief of Staff of India. Some are of the opinion that Pakistan might have been lured into the battlefield by war games conducted in March 1965 at the Institute of Defense Analysis, USA from which they concluded that in the event of a war Pakistan would come out victorious. Authors like Stephen Philip Cohen opine that Pakistan had an exaggerated idea of India’s military weakness. The 1965 War was a tremendous shock. Nur Khan, the then Pakistani Air Marshal and Commander-in-Chief that Pakistan and not India was to be blamed for starting the war. However propaganda continued in Pakistan against the leadership and not against intelligence failures. Till the debacle of 1971 this state continued when Pakistan was humbled and Bangladesh was carved out of it.

More human lives lost in the war

Above: More Innocent lives lost in Indo-Pak War

RESULTS:
Tension persisted after the indecisive war. Pakistan however had suffered more in terms of material and human loss. Many historians opine that if the war had continued Pakistan would have been finally humbled. Indians were unhappy with India’s decision to accede to the cease-fire at a crucial point when victory was within its grasp. Another consequence was that both sides considerably increased their defense spending. Cold War spread its tentacles across the subcontinent. Rapid changes took place within the army in India – expansions were initiated in various commands and control departments to rectify shortcomings. The Research and Analysis wing for external espionage and information network was established. The political and military tilt in Indian was towards the Soviet Union. Prior to the Bangladesh Liberation War this bond was officially cemented. Against the background of the war against China this war was a political and strategic victory for India and her premier, Shastri, came to be hailed by his countrymen as a hero.

Cam Shots of PAF craft being shot down by an IAF Gnat

Above: Cam Shots of PAF craft being shot down by an IAF Gnat

In Pakistan however there were many who looked positively at their country’s military performance, with 6th September being observed as ‘Defense day’ – marking the successful defense of Sialkot against invaders. The air force was given greater praise than the ground forces. The myth of a hard-hitting Pakistani army blew up in smoke. However the final results were disappointing to all – Pakistan had failed in its primary objective of occupying the whole of Kashmir. Many officials began to criticize the failure of Operation Gibraltar – the direct cause for the outbreak of war. The Tashkent deal was thought of to be unkind towards Pakistan. Few cared to read the consequences of what would have happened if the agreement had fallen through. Advised by the Foreign Minister, Bhutto, Ayub Khan had raised the expectations of the people about the invincibility of Pakistan’s armed might. But the failure proved to be a liability for Ayub Khan. Opposition became more vocal. Pakistan’s economy, which had been rapidly progressing during the early 60′s, got a severe beating with the escalation of military expenses. Then Pakistan, disgruntled with the USA for having failed to give support began to slowly gravitate towards China for military aid and political support. Another fall out was the growing anger against the Pakistani government in East Pakistan. Bengali leaders blamed the government for not giving necessary security for the East although huge funds were withdrawn from this region to fund the battle. Some PAF attacks were launched from East Pakistan but India did not react to it in this area, although here there were only two infantry brigade divisions minus tank support. This had caused Mujibur Rahman to be apprehensive of the situation. He began to feel the need that the east should be more autonomous to be able to protect its own interests. This bend of thinking began to take roots and ultimately led to another war between the two neighbors in 1971.

Below: Graph for Defense Spendings and others from year 1960 and upwards

Graph for Defense Spendings and others from year 1960 upwards

Vietnam War

Vietnam War Map

Vietnam War Map

Vietnam War, fought from 1957 until spring 1975, began as a struggle between the Republic of Vietnam (South Vietnam) supported by the United States and a Communist-led insurgency assisted by the Democratic Republic of Vietnam (North Vietnam). Eventually, both the United States and North Vietnam committed their regular military forces to the struggle. North Vietnam received economic and military assistance from the Soviet Union and the People’s Republic of China.

Vietnamese Monk

The Republic of Korea, Australia, New Zealand, Thailand, and the Philippines furnished troops to the U.S.-South Vietnamese side. With 45,943 U.S. battle deaths, Vietnam was the fourth costliest war the country fought in terms of loss of life.

The Vietnam War was a continuation of the Indochina War of 1946-1954, in which the Communist dominated Vietnamese nationalists (Viet Minh) defeated France’s attempt to reestablish colonial rule. American involvement began in 1950 when President Harry S. Truman invoked the Mutual Defense Assistance Act of 1949 to provide aid to French forces in Vietnam, Laos, and Cambodia. Early U.S. aims were to halt the spread of Communism and to encourage French participation in the international defense of Europe.

Even with U.S. aid in the form of materiel and a Military Assistance Advisory Group (MAAG), the French could not defeat the Viet Minh use of both guerrilla warfare and conventional attacks. Ending the Indochina War, the GENEVA ACCORDS OF 1954 divided Vietnam at the seventeenth parallel with a three-mile Demilitarized Zone (DMZ). The partition in effect created two nations: the Democratic Republic of Vietnam in the north with its capital at Hanoi, and the Republic of Vietnam in the south with its capital at Saigon. Vietnam’s neighbors, Laos and

Cambodia, became independent nations under nominally neutralist governments.

The administration of President Dwight D. Eisenhower (picture below) provided aid and support to the government of Ngo Dinh Diem. The MAAG, which grew in strength from 342 personnel to nearly 700, helped Diem to build up his armed forces. In 1956, with Eisenhower’s concurrence, Diem refused to participate in the national elections called for in the Geneva Accords, asserting that South Vietnam had not acceded to the agreement and that free elections were impossible in the north, and declared himself president of the Republic of Vietnam.

Dwight_Vietman

During the first years of his rule, Diem, assisted by the MAAG, American civilian advisers, and by $190 million a year in U.S. financial aid, established effective armed forces and a seemingly stable government. He defeated or co-opted South Vietnamese rivals, resettled some 800,000 Catholic refugees from North Vietnam, initiated land reform, and conducted a campaign to wipe out the Viet Minh organization that remained in the south. Although strong on the surface, however, Diem’s regime was inefficient and riddled with corruption. Its land reform brought little benefit to the rural poor. Commanded by generals selected for loyalty to Diem rather than ability, the armed forces were poorly trained and low in morale. The anti-Viet Minh campaign alienated many peasants, and Diem’s increasingly autocratic rule turned much of the urban anticommunist elite against him.

Anticipating control of South Vietnam through elections and preoccupied with internal problems, North Vietnam’s charismatic leader, Ho Chi Minh, at first did little to exploit the vulnerabilities of the southern regime. Nevertheless, Ho and his colleagues were committed to the liberation of all of Vietnam and had accepted the Geneva Accords only with reluctance, under pressure from the Russians and Chinese, who hoped to avoid another Korea-type confrontation with the United States. In deference to his allies’ caution and to American power, Ho moved slowly at the outset against South Vietnam.

Beginning in 1957, the southern Viet Minh, with authorization from Hanoi, launched a campaign of political subversion and terrorism, and gradually escalated a guerrilla war against Diem’s government. Diem quickly gave the insurgents the label Viet Cong (VC), which they retained throughout the ensuing struggle. North Vietnam created a political organization in the south, the National Front for the Liberation of South Vietnam (NLF), ostensibly a broad coalition of elements opposed to Diem but controlled from the north by a Communist inner core. To reinforce the revived insurgency, Hanoi began sending southward soldiers and political cadres who had regrouped to North Vietnam after the armistice in 1954. These men, and growing quantities of weapons and equipment, traveled to South Vietnam via a network of routes through eastern Laos called the Ho Chi Minh Trail and by sea in junks and trawlers. At this stage, however, the vast majority of Viet Cong were native southerners, and they secured most of their weapons and supplies by capture from government forces.

Building on the organizational base left from the French war and exploiting popular grievances against Diem, the Viet Cong rapidly extended their political control of the countryside. Besides conducting small guerrilla operations, they gradually began to mount larger assaults with battalion and then regimental size light infantry units. As the fighting intensified, the first American deaths occurred in July 1959, when two soldiers of the MAAG were killed during a Viet Cong attack on Bien Hoa, north of Saigon. By the time President John F. Kennedy took office in 1961, it was clear that America’s ally needed additional help.

Kennedy viewed the conflict in South Vietnam as a test case of Communist expansion by means of local “wars of national liberation.” For that reason, as well as a continuing commitment to the general policy of “containment,” Kennedy enlarged the U.S. effort in South Vietnam. He sent in more advisers to strengthen Diem’s armed forces, provided additional funds and equipment, and deployed American helicopter companies and other specialized units. To carry out the enlarged program, Kennedy created a new joint (army, navy, air force) headquarters in Saigon, the Military Assistance Command,

Vietnam (MACV). The number of Americans in South Vietnam increased to more than 16,000 and they began engaging in combat with the Viet Cong.

After a promising start, the Kennedy program faltered. Diem’s dictatorial rule undermined South Vietnamese military effectiveness and fed popular discontent, especially among the country’s numerous Buddhists. An effort to relocate the rural population in supposedly secure “strategic hamlets” collapsed due to poor planning and ineffective execution. With support from the Kennedy administration, Diem’s generals overthrew and assassinated him in a coup d’etat on 1 November 1963.

Diem’s death, followed by the assassination of President Kennedy on 22 November 1963, did nothing to improve allied fortunes. As a succession of unstable Saigon governments floundered, the Viet Cong began advancing from guerrilla warfare to larger attacks aimed at destroying the South Vietnamese Army (ARVN). To reinforce the campaign, Hanoi infiltrated quantities of modern Communist-bloc infantry weapons, and in late 1964, began sending units of its regular army into South Vietnam. Kennedy’s successor, Lyndon B. Johnson, during 1964 increased American military manpower in South Vietnam to 23,300 and tried to revive the counterinsurgency campaign. However, political chaos in Saigon and growing Viet Cong strength in the countryside frustrated his efforts and those of the MACV commander, General William C. Westmoreland.

Viet Cong Shot

Johnson and his advisers turned to direct pressure on North Vietnam. Early in 1964, they initiated a program of small-scale covert raids on the north and began planning for air strikes. In August 1964, American planes raided North Vietnam in retaliation for two torpedo boat attacks (the second of which probably did not occur) on U.S. destroyers in the Gulf of Tonkin. Johnson used this incident to secure authorization from Congress (the TONKIN GULF RESOLUTION) to use armed force to “repel any armed attack against the forces of the United States and to repel further aggression.” That resolution served as a legal basis for subsequent increases in the U.S. commitment, but in 1970 after questions arose as to whether the administration had misrepresented the incidents, Congress repealed it.

Committed like his predecessors to containment and to countering Communist “wars of national liberation,” Johnson also wanted to maintain U.S. credibility as an ally and feared the domestic political repercussions of losing South Vietnam. Accordingly, he and his advisers moved toward further escalation.

During 1964, Johnson authorized limited U.S. bombing of the Ho Chi Minh Trail. In February 1965, after the Viet Cong killed thirty-one Americans at Pleiku and Qui Nhon, the President sanctioned retaliatory strikes against North Vietnam. In March, retaliation gave way to a steadily intensified but carefully controlled aerial offensive against the north (Operation Rolling Thunder), aimed at reducing Hanoi’s ability to support the Viet Cong and compelling its leaders to negotiate an end to the conflict on U.S. terms.

At the same time, Johnson committed American combat forces to the fight. Seven U.S. Marine battalions and an Army airborne brigade entered South Vietnam between March and May 1965. Their initial mission was to defend air bases used in Operation Rolling Thunder, but in April, Johnson expanded their role to active operations against the Viet Cong. During the same period, Johnson authorized General Westmoreland to employ U.S. jets in combat in the south, and in June, B-52 strategic bombers began raiding Viet Cong bases. As enemy pressure on the ARVN continued and evidence accumulated that North Vietnamese regular divisions were entering the battle, Westmoreland called for a major expansion of the ground troop commitment. On 28 July, Johnson announced deployments that would bring U.S. strength to 180,000 by the end of 1965. Westmoreland threw these troops into action against the Viet Cong and North Vietnamese’s large military units. Taking advantage of their helicopter-borne mobility, U.S. forces won early tactical victories, but the cost in American dead and wounded also began to mount and the enemy showed no signs of backing off.

Additional deployments increased American troop strength to a peak of 543,400 by 1969. To support them, MACV, using troops and civilian engineering firms, constructed or expanded ports, erected fortified camps, built vast depots, paved thousands of miles of roads, and created a network of airfields.

Desiring to keep the war limited to Vietnam, President Johnson authorized only small-scale raids into the enemy bases in Laos and Cambodia. As a result, in South Vietnam, General Westmoreland perforce fought a war of attrition. He used his American troops to battle the North Vietnamese and Viet Cong regular units while the ARVN and South Vietnam’s territorial forces carried on the pacification campaign against the Viet Cong guerrillas and political infrastructure. As the fighting went on, a stable government emerged in Saigon under Nguyen Van Thieu. These efforts, however, brought only stalemate. Aided by Russia and China, the North Vietnamese countered Operation Rolling Thunder with an air defense system of increasing sophistication and effectiveness. In South Vietnam, they fed in troops to match the American buildup and engaged in their own campaign of attrition. While suffering heavier losses than the U.S. in most engagements, they inflicted a steady and rising toll of American dead. Pacification in South Vietnam made little progress. The fighting produced South Vietnamese civilian casualties, the result of enemy terrorism, American bombing and shelling, and in a few instances-notably the MY LAI MASSACRE of March 1968-of atrocities by U.S. troops.

In the U.S., opposition to the war grew to encompass a broad spectrum of the public even as doubts about America’s course emerged within the administration. By the end of 1967, President Johnson had decided to level off the bombing in the north and American troop strength in the south and to seek a way out of the war, possibly by turning more of the fighting over to the South Vietnamese.

Late in 1967, North Vietnam’s leaders decided to break what they also saw as a stalemate by conducting a “General Offensive/General Uprising,” a combination of heavy military attacks with urban revolts. After preliminary battles, the North Vietnamese early in 1968 besieged a Marine base at Khe Sanh in far northwestern South Vietnam. On the night of 31 January, during the Tet (Lunar New Year) holidays, 84,000 enemy troops attacked seventy-four towns and cities including Saigon. Although U.S. intelligence had gleaned something of the plan, the extent of the attacks on the cities came as a surprise.

Viet Cong units initially captured portions of many towns, but they failed to spark a popular uprising. Controlling Hué for almost a month, they executed 3,000 civilians as “enemies of the people.” ARVN and U.S. troops quickly cleared most localities, and the besiegers of Khe Sanh withdrew after merciless pounding by American air power and artillery. At the cost of 32,000 dead (by MACV estimate), the TET OFFENSIVE produced no lasting enemy military advantage.

In the United States, however, the Tet Offensive confirmed President Johnson’s determination to wind down the war. Confronting bitter antiwar dissent within the Democratic Party and a challenge to his renomination from Senator Eugene McCarthy, Johnson rejected a military request for additional U.S. troops and halted most bombing of the north. He also withdrew from the presidential race to devote the rest of his term to the search for peace in Vietnam. In return for the partial bombing halt, North Vietnam agreed to open negotiations. Starting in Paris in May 1968, the talks were unproductive for a long time.

Taking office in 1969, President Richard M. Nixon continued the Paris talks. He also began withdrawing U.S. troops from South Vietnam while simultaneously building up Saigon’s forces so that they could fight on with only American advice and materiel assistance. This program was labeled “Vietnamization.”

Because the Viet Cong had been much weakened by its heavy losses in the Tet Offensive and in two subsequent general offensives in May and August 1968, the years 1969-1971 witnessed apparent allied progress in South Vietnam. The ARVN gradually took on the main burden of the ground fighting, which declined in intensity. American troop strength diminished from its 1969 peak of 543,400 to 156,800 at the end of 1971. The allies also made progress in pacification. American and South Vietnamese offensives against the enemy sanctuaries in Cambodia in April and May 1970 and an ARVN raid against the Ho Chi Minh Trail in February 1971 helped to buy time for Vietnamization. On the negative side, as a result of trends in American society, of disillusionment with the war among short-term draftee soldiers, and of organizational turbulence caused by the troop withdrawals, U.S. forces suffered from growing indiscipline, drug abuse, and racial conflict.

In spring 1972, North Vietnam, in order to revive its fortunes in the south, launched the so-called Easter Offensive with twelve divisions, employing tanks and artillery on a scale not previously seen in the war. In response, President Nixon, while he continued to withdraw America’s remaining ground troops, increased U.S. air support to the ARVN. The North Vietnamese made initial territorial gains, but the ARVN rallied, assisted materially by U.S. Air Force and Navy planes and American advisers on the ground. Meanwhile, Nixon resumed full-scale bombing of North Vietnam and mined its harbors. Beyond defeating the Easter Offensive, Nixon intended these attacks, which employed B-52s and technologically advanced guided bombs, to batter Hanoi toward a negotiated settlement of the war. By late 1972, the North Vietnamese, had lost an estimated 100,000 dead and large amounts of equipment and had failed to capture any major towns or populated areas. Nevertheless, their military position in the south was better than it had been in 1971, and the offensive had facilitated a limited revival of the Viet Cong.

Both sides were ready for a negotiated settlement. During the autumn of 1972, Nixon’s special adviser, Henry A. Kissinger, and North Vietnamese representative Le Duc Tho, who had been negotiating in secret since 1969, reached the outlines of an agreement. Each side made a key concession. The U.S. dropped its demand for complete withdrawal of North Vietnamese troops from South Vietnam. Hanoi abandoned its insistence that the Thieu government be replaced by a presumably Communist-dominated coalition. After additional diplomatic maneuvering between Washington and Hanoi and Washington and Saigon, which balked at the terms, and after a final U.S. air campaign against Hanoi in December, the ceasefire agreement went into effect on 28 January 1973.

Under it, military prisoners were returned, all American troops withdrew, and a four-nation commission supervised the truce. In fact, the fighting in South Vietnam continued, and the elections called for in the agreement never took place. During 1973 and 1974, the North Vietnamese, in violation of the ceasefire, massed additional men and supplies inside South Vietnam. Meanwhile, the Nixon administration, distracted by the WATERGATE scandal, had to accept a congressional cutoff of all funds for American combat operations in Southeast Asia after 15 August 1973.

Early in 1975, the North Vietnamese, again employing regular divisions with armor and artillery, launched their final offensive against South Vietnam. That nation, exhausted by years of fighting, demoralized by a steady reduction in the flow of American aid, and lacking capable leadership at the top, rapidly collapsed. A misguided effort by President Thieu to regroup his forces in northern South Vietnam set off a rout that continued almost unbroken until the North Vietnamese closed in on Saigon late in April. On 21 April, President Thieu resigned. His successor, General Duong Van Minh, surrendered the country on 30 April. North Vietnamese and Viet Cong troops entered Saigon only hours after the U.S. completed an emergency airlift of embassy personnel and thousands of South Vietnamese who feared for their lives under the Communists. Hanoi gained control of South Vietnam, and its allies won in Cambodia, where the government surrendered to insurgent forces on 17 April 1975, and Laos, where the Communists gradually assumed control.

The costs of the war were high for every participant. Besides combat deaths, the U.S. lost 1,333 men missing and 10,298 dead of non-battle causes. In terms of money ($138.9 billion), only World War II was more expensive. Costs less tangible but equally real were the loss of trust by American citizens in their government and the demoralization of the U.S. armed forces, which would take years to recover their discipline and self-confidence. South Vietnam suffered more than 166,000 military dead and possibly as many as 415,000 civilians. North Vietnamese and Viet Cong deaths amounted to at least 937,000. To show for the effort, the U.S. could claim only that it had delayed South Vietnam’s fall long enough for other Southeast Asian countries to stabilize their noncommunist governments.

INDO-PAKISTANI WAR OF 1947

Map of Kashmir

Above: Map of Kadish Region

The Indo-Pakistani War of 1947, also known as the first Kashmir War was fought from 1947 to 1948. The dispute was over a certain part of Kashmir.

First Kadish War Action

Above: Scene of the First Kadish War Action (1947)

Jammu and Kashmir was one of the many Indian states recognized by the British. Both India and Pakistan laid claims to the state. The Maharaja of Kashmir, Hari Singh wanted to remain independent by deploying dilatory tactics.

State of Indian subcontinent after British haste exit

Above: State of Indian subcontinent after British haste exit

At the time of British withdrawal the state was occupied by the pro-Pakistani tribals from the North West Frontier Province as well as by Pakistani troops. This forced the Maharaja to opt for India and the latter rushed troops into the region. Thus the war began. Till date Pakistan claims that since the majority are Muslims Pakistan has a better claim to it. But India says that 48% belong to other communities like Sikhs, Buddhists and Hindus etc.

Dogra officers slaughtered during the war

Above: Dogra officers slaughtered during the war

The advantage was apparently with the Pakistani supported local paramilitary known as the Azad Kashmir force. Azad means ‘free’. Pakistan was of the view that with the increase in hostilities the ratio in favour of Pakistan would increase. Before the war the forces of Jammu and Kashmir were spread around the border as a response to militant activity. The British were suspected of having a hand in the arrest and murder of a Dogra Officer in the Gilgit region for supporting the tribal Islamic factions.

Animation of Middle-East cease-fire definition

Above: Animation of Middle-East cease-fire definition

By 1948 the fronts of both India and Pakistan had solidified with neither side having got much of an advantage. Support for Azad Kashmir became gradually more overt. Cease-fire was declared on 31st December 1948. By the end of the war India had been able to take possession of two thirds of Kashmir.

Below: The flag of Azad Kashmir

The flag of Azad Kashmir

Korean War

Korean War Portray

Above: Korean War Portray

The Korean War began on 25 June 1950, when forces of the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea (DPRK) attacked southward across the thirty-eighth parallel against the army of the Republic of Korea (ROK). Trained and armed by the Soviet Union and the People’s Republic of China (PRC) and substantially out-numbering the South Koreans along the front, the North Koreans advanced rapidly, capturing Seoul, the ROK capital, on 28 June.

Photo of President Harry S. Truman (1945 - 1953)

Photo of President Harry S. Truman (1945 – 1953)

The U.S. administration of Harry S. Truman reacted sharply. With Secretary of State Dean G. Acheson taking the lead in advising the commander-in-chief, the United States rushed the Korean issue to the United Nations Security Council in New York. The Soviet Union was boycotting that body over its refusal to grant China’s seat to the recently founded PRC under Mao Zedong, thus making possible the quick passage of U.S.-drafted resolutions on 25 and 27 June. The first called for a cessation of hostilities and the withdrawal of DPRK forces north of the thirty-eighth parallel, the second for assistance from member states to the ROK “necessary to repel the armed attack and to restore international peace and security in the area.” Already the United States was aiding the ROK with arms, ammunition, and air and naval forces. On 30 June, as the North Koreans advanced south of Seoul, Truman committed to the battle U.S. combat troops stationed in Japan. On 7 July the UN Security Council passed another U.S.-drafted resolution creating a United Nations Command (UNC) in Korea under American leadership. Truman appointed General Douglas MacArthur, the commander-in-chief of U.S. Forces, Far East, to head the UNC.

Casualties in Korean War

Above: Shot of dead bodies killed during Korean War

The Korean War lasted for over three years. Although the United States and ROK provided over 90 percent of the manpower on the UN side, fourteen other governments sent forces of some kind and unofficially Japan provided hundreds of laborers in critical Korean industries and in its former colony’s harbors operating American vessels. On the North Korean side, the PRC eventually committed over a million troops, and the Soviet Union contributed large-scale matériel assistance and hundreds of pilots and artillery personnel. United States forces suffered in battle alone over 142,000 casualties, including 33,000 deaths; the Chinese nearly 900,000 casualties, including 150,000 deaths. Koreans on both sides endured far greater losses. Total casualties in the war, military and civilian combined, numbered over 3 million.

The big three heads of the Government

Above: The Big Three – from left; British Prime Minister Clement Atlee, US President Harry S. Truman, and Soviet Premier Joseph Stalin

Origins of the War

The war originated in the division of the peninsula in August 1945 by the United States and the Soviet Union. Korea had been under Japanese rule since early in the century. American leaders believed that, with its defeat in WORLD WAR II, Japan should lose its empire but that Koreans would need years of tutelage before being prepared to govern themselves. The United States surmised that a multipower trusteeship over the peninsula, to involve itself, the Soviet Union, China, and perhaps Great Britain, would provide Koreans with the necessary preparation while averting the great-power competition that had disrupted northeast Asia a half century before. Yet as the Pacific war approached its end, the Allied powers had not reached precise agreements on Korea. On the eve of Japan’s surrender, President Truman proposed to Soviet premier Joseph Stalin that their governments’ forces occupy Korea, with the thirty-eighth parallel as the dividing line between them. Stalin agreed.

The Moscow Conference 1945

Above: In Moscow Conference 1945, Ernest Bevin (left), British foreign secretary; V.M. Molotov (center), Soviet foreign minister, and James F. Byrnes, US secretary of state, affirmed four-power commission to rule Korea

At the Moscow Conference of Foreign Ministers in December 1945, the United States did advance a trustee-ship proposal, but the Soviets watered it down to include merely negotiations toward trusteeship in a joint commission made up of representatives of the two occupation commands in Korea. The new body soon became stalemated, adjourning in May 1946. The Americans aligned with the Korean right in the south, while the Soviets sided with the extreme left in the north. Despite a second attempt to resolve differences in the joint commission in the spring and summer of 1947, the Soviet-American stalemate continued, as the escalating COLD WAR in Europe and the Middle East dampened prospects for accommodation in other areas. In September the United States referred the Korean issue to the UN General Assembly.

Map of Korea with offensive movements during the war

Above: Map of Korea with offensive movements during the war

By this time South Korea was in considerable turmoil. Since the beginning of the occupation, the Americans had favored conservative Korean groups who had either collaborated with the Japanese or spent most of the period of Japan’s rule in exile. The economic division of the country, the influx of over a million Koreans into the territory south of the thirty-eighth parallel from Japan, Manchuria, and North Korea, and poorly conceived occupation policies combined to produce widespread discontent. Meanwhile, the extreme right, led by Syngman Rhee, agitated aggressively for establishment of an independent government in the south. With support in Congress waning for the U.S. occupation, the Truman administration decided to refer the Korean issue to the United Nations.

Korean withstand engaging in Guerrilla Warfare

Above: Korean withstand engaging in Guerrilla Warfare

The Soviets refused to cooperate in creating a unified government in Korea, so the United States persuaded the international organization to supervise elections below the thirty-eighth parallel. These occurred on 10 May 1948, and the boycott of them by leftist and some rightist leaders ensured a victory for Rhee and his allies. When the ROK came into being on 15 August, Rhee stood as its president and the conservative Democratic party dominated the National Assembly. Less than a month later, the Soviet Union brought into existence the DPRK in the north, led by the Communist Kim Il Sung as premier. Confident of the relative strength of their creation, the Soviets withdrew their occupation forces at the end of the year. Given the widespread turmoil in the south, which included guerrilla warfare in mountain areas, the Americans did not withdraw their last occupation forces until June 1949. Even then, they left substantial quantities of light arms for the ROK army and a 500-man military advisory group to assist in its development.

Emergency shipment to the Korean War zone

Above: Emergency shipment of Air Force and Navy aircraft with personnel and equipment to the Korean War zone

Beginning in March 1949 Kim Il Sung lobbied Stalin for approval of and matériel support for a military attack on the ROK. Stalin initially demurred. At the end of January 1950, with the Communists having won the civil war on mainland China, with Mao in Moscow negotiating a military alliance with the Soviet Union, and with support for the ROK in the United States appearing less than firm, he changed his mind. Over the next several months, Stalin approved the shipment to North Korea of heavy arms, including tanks, thus giving the DPRK a clear military advantage over the ROK. North Korea was also strengthened by the return of tens of thousands of Korean nationals who had fought on the Communist side in China. In meetings with Kim in Moscow in early April, Stalin explicitly approved a North Korean attack on South Korea, provided Mao also gave his blessing. Although he believed that the United States would not intervene, especially if the North Koreans won a speedy victory, he made it clear that, if Kim ran into difficulty with the Americans, he would have to depend as a counter on direct Chinese, not Soviet, intervention. When in mid-May Mao endorsed Kim’s proposal for an early attack on the ROK, the plans proceeded to their final stage.

DPRK forces attack repulse enemy out of Korea

Above: DPRK forces attack repulse enemy out of Korea

The Course of the War

Even with the intervention of U.S. troops in July, the DPRK nearly drove the enemy out of Korea. By early August forces fighting under the UN banner were squeezed into the Pusan perimeter, on the southeastern corner of the peninsula. At the end of the month DPRK forces launched an offensive that over the next two weeks inflicted more enemy casualties than in any other comparable period during the war.

UN Troops recapturing Seoul, South Korea

Above: UN forces recapturing Seoul, South Korea

Yet UN troops now outnumbered their opponents and, on 15 September, General MacArthur launched a counteroffensive at Inchon, the port for Seoul. By month’s end UN forces had broken out of the Pusan perimeter and retaken Seoul. DPRK forces were in headlong retreat northward and the United States had altered its objective from reestablishing the thirty-eighth parallel to destroying the enemy and reuniting the peninsula under a friendly government. ROK units began crossing the old boundary on 1 October and other UN units followed a week later, by which time the UN General Assembly had given its endorsement.

DPRK Artillery

Above: DPRK using artillery at the battlefront

Long anticipating such developments, the PRC now moved decisively toward intervention. The DPRK appealed to Beijing for aid on 1 October and Stalin urged Mao to comply. The “Chinese People’s Volunteers” (CPV) under General Peng Dehuai commenced large-scale movements into Korea on 19 October.

Ground combat in Korean War

Above: Ground combat in Korean War

Despite contact with CPV soldiers from 25 October on, UN ground forces did not stop their movement northward. General MacArthur was determined to win a quick and total victory and, despite reservations in the Pentagon and the State Department, Washington proved unwilling to order him to halt. On 24 November UN forces began what they hoped would be an “end-the-war offensive.” Four days later, with CPV forces over 200,000 strong engaged in a strong counterattack against severely overextended UN units, MacArthur declared that he faced “an entirely new war.”

UN launching an air attack

Above: UN launching an air attack

Over the next month UN troops retreated to the thirty-eighth parallel. On New Year’s Eve CPV units crossed the old boundary in an attempt to push enemy forces off the peninsula. MacArthur told Washington that the U.S. choice was between expanding the war to air and naval attacks against mainland China and accepting total defeat.

Picture of General Matthew B. Ridgway

Above: Picture of General Matthew B. Ridgway

Adhering to a Europe-first strategy and faced with allied pressure to both persevere in Korea and contain the war there, the Truman administration refused to follow MacArthur’s lead. During the second week of January the CPV offensive petered out below Seoul in the face of severe weather, supply problems, and the regrouping of UN forces under the leadership of General Matthew B. Ridgway, who had taken over the U.S. Eighth Army in Korea in late December. Over the next three months, UN forces, outnumbered on the ground but controlling the air and enjoying a sizable advantage in artillery, gradually pushed the enemy northward, retaking Seoul in mid-March. A month later UN units held a line slightly north of the thirty-eighth parallel in all sectors except the extreme west.

Map of Korea showing offensive movements

Above: Map of Korea showing war offensive movements

This evolving situation produced a final showdown between Truman and MacArthur. The president was content, if possible, to settle the war roughly where it had begun the previous June, and he was under steady pressure to do so from allies and neutrals in the United Nations. Dissatisfied with less than total victory, the UN commander continued to scheme for an expanded war. Anticipating a Chinese spring offensive at any moment and facing continued public dissent from MacArthur, Truman on 11 April removed his field commander from all his positions, appointing Ridgway in his place. The action set off a storm of protest in the United States, but Truman held firm, aided by UN forces in Korea, which repulsed massive Chinese offensives in April and May. Following consultations in Moscow in early June, the Communist allies decided to seek negotiations for an armistice.

Korean Peace Talk Representatives

Above: Korean representatives for peace talk at Kaesong, Korea (1951)

Peace Negotiations

On 10 July negotiations began between the field commands at Kaesong, just south of the thirty-eighth parallel. Despite restraint on both sides from seeking major gains on the battlefield, an armistice was not signed for over two years.

The first issue negotiated was an armistice line, and this took until 27 November to resolve. The Communists initially insisted on the thirty-eighth parallel; the UN command, which was dominated by the United States, pressed for a line north of the prevailing battle line, arguing that this would be reasonable compensation for its agreement in an armistice to desist its pounding of North Korea from the air and sea. After much acrimony, the suspension of the talks for two months, and small battle-field gains by the UN side, the parties agreed to the existing “line of contact”-provided, that is, that agreement on all other issues was reached within thirty days.

Two main issues remained on the agenda: “arrangements for the realization of cease fire and armistice … including the composition, authority, and functions of a supervising organization for carrying out the terms;” and “arrangements relating to prisoners of war.” With the UN command relaxing its military pressure on the ground and the Communists securing their defensive lines as never before, neither side had a compelling reason to give way. Nonetheless, by April 1952 essential agreement had been reached on the postarmistice rotation of troops in Korea, the replacement and introduction of matériel, and the makeup and authority of a Neutral Nations Supervisory Commission. The one remaining item was the fate of prisoners of war (POWs).

Prisoners of War (POW)

Above: A communist troops escorting UN prisoners of war

The POW issue was bound to be difficult, as it involved captured personnel on both sides who had participated in the ongoing civil conflicts in Korea and/or China. Many of the prisoners held by the United Nations had begun the war in South Korea, been captured by the DPRK army, and eventually been impressed into it. Others had fought in Nationalist armies during the Chinese civil war and later been integrated into the CPV. Not all of these prisoners wanted to return to the DPRK or PRC at war’s end. Negotiations eventually became stalemated over the fate of Chinese prisoners. In October 1952, after months without progress, the UNC suspended talks.

Dwight D. Eisenhower

Above: Picture of Dwight D. Eisenhower

Negotiations did not resume until April of the following year. By this time Dwight D. Eisenhower had replaced Truman as president of the United States (20 January) and Stalin had died (5 March). When negotiations failed to achieve quick success, the American president ordered the bombing of dikes in North Korea, which threatened the DPRK’s food supply; he also threatened to terminate the talks and expand the war. In early June the Communists finally accepted the U.S. position on POWs. The centrality of Eisenhower’s actions in this out-come remains uncertain.

Communist Korean POW

Above: Picture of Communist Korean captured by UN troop

The fighting would have ended in mid-June had it not been for the action of Syngman Rhee, who opposed an armistice without Korea’s unification. His wishes ignored, he ordered ROK guards to release over 25,000 anti-Communist Korean POWs held in the south. This action on 18 June led to strong protests from the Communists and a crisis in U.S.-ROK relations. After the Communists launched successful limited offensives against ROK forces along the battlefront and the Americans promised to negotiate a defense treaty with the ROK immediately following the conclusion of fighting, Rhee finally agreed not to disrupt-but not to sign-an armistice. The Communists joined the UNC in signing the agreement on July 27.

Below: Flag of North Korea (upper) and South Korea (bottom)

Flag of North Korea

Flag of South Korea

The Indian War of 1857

Map of India

Above: Map showing the cities of India involved in the war

India has lost its independence to the British. British had money and technology to rule over India. What started as a mere colonies in the Indian subcontinent was now getting costly for the local Indians.

There were taxes levied on Indians. Where Indian weavers were considered one of the best in the world, the British had destroyed this industry and made Indians as mere cotton growers for their home industry. There was also anger about the general economics of the state which was in shambles. There was lootings of precious gems and other precious items from the kings and the rich in the country.

Picture of Rani Laxmibai

Above: Portrait of Rani Laxmibai heroine of the first war in India

There was another custom followed by the British in order to attach more states to their regime, all states which were not left with a male heir were annexed to the East India Company. This was another souring point, it especially came to attention when Rani Laxmibai’s husband died without leaving her a male heir, she decided to adopt one, which was allowed under Hindu religion but unknown to the British, however the British fought against her to get the throne.

Rebel Indians Hung

Above: Indians engage in rebellion hanging to death

More than this there were constant attempts of converting Indians into Christians; this is what led to the revolt of 1857. It was required for the sepoys (soldiers) to use cartridges made out of cow fat and pig fat. Hindus considered the cow sacred and did not consider pig as an edible content, pig was a also a problem with the Muslims.

Mangal Pandey Stamp

Above: A stamp of India portraying Mangal Pandey a freedom fighter

The soldiers after discovering that they might have to use such cartridges decided to revolt. One of the soldiers was Mangal Pandey who went ahead openly with the rebellion, this resulted into widespread belief among the British that this battalion did not respect its officers.

Representation of Mutiny in India 1857

Above: Representation of war during Mutiny in India 1857

As after effects to this there was wide spread mutiny all over the country, which also involved leaders slowly from all over the country including Bahadur Shah Zafar, Marathas rulers as well as Awadhis. The mutiny rose and took shape of a battle at places like Kanpur, Delhi, Meerut, Jhansi, etc. There was widespread anger among the Indians against the British.

Indian People Slaughtered

Above: Picture of British soldiers slaughtering soldiers and civilian in India

There were some highly shameful acts done by the British like open massacre of thousands of residents of Delhi. Where they went on the killing spree with their bayonets and killed common civilians who did not have anything to do against the British.

The British also sought three sons of Bahadur Shah Zafar and shot them, who were heirs to the Delhi throne. British also presented their father with their heads the next day to let him know about the murder.

Freedom of Indian People

Above: A stance of freedom for Indian people

However, all the atrocities of the East India Company came to an end with the Company requiring moving out and the British Empire taking its hold in the country again. However, this mutiny started against much powerful enemy by the Indians who were short of arms and ammunitions like guns, etc went on, silently and sometimes loudly for more than 90 years when finally on 15th of August 1948, India regained its freedom to become one of the largest democracies in the world.

Though there are diverse races and populations in the country, the country has managed to survive and to develop significantly.

THE AFTERMATH OF THE SINO-JAPANESE WAR (1935-1945)

Massacre in Marco Polo Bridge

Above: Unburied corpses during the massacre in Marco Polo Bridge 1937

Tensions were simmering between China and Japan. Only an excuse was needed to ignite the flames. A minor incident on Marco Polo Bridge (near Beijing) between Japanese and Chinese soldiers on 7th July 1937, gave the excuse for Japan to jump into war against China. This was the beginning of the Second Sino-Japanese War.

The brush between the two Asian powers also speeded up the formal announcement of the second Guomindang or the CCP united front against Japan.

Map showing Japanese Occupation and Control 1940

Above: Map showing Japanese Occupation and Control 1940

It was an uneasy truce between the Nationalists and the Communists and soon began to break down from late 1938. After 1940 the conflicts between the two became more and more intense in the areas not under Japanese control. The Communists won over the general masses with their grass root organizations, administrative reforms and various land and tax measures aimed at easing the pressure on the peasants. The Nationalists went all out to counter the spread of Communism as an ideal.

Nationlist Soldiers

Above: Nationalist Soldiers marching during the second Sino-Japanese War

China came out in 1945 as a great military power but this was only of face value. Actually she was torn apart with civil war. Incessant wars, outside and inside, gnawed into the economy. Inflation spiraled as Nationalists began to thrive on profiteering, speculation and hoarding. Floods aggravated the situation. Millions of starving Chinese became homeless caught in the jaws of violence.

The Big Three in the Yalta Conference

Above: Pictorials with “The Big Three” (Churchil, Roosevelt, and Stalin) during the Yalta Conference – February 2, 1945

The situation became worse for the people when, as per the agreement reached at Yalta Conference, in February 1945 Soviet troops marched into Manchuria to put an end to the war with Japan. On this point China had been consulted although it was not present at the conference. They had not opposed Soviet entry but it was understood that the latter would deal only with the Nationalist Government. After withdrawal of Japan the Soviets, as per terms of the treaty, dismantled and removed major industrial equipments left behind by Japan. However, the Soviet presence in northeast China indirectly allowed the Communists to arm themselves with the discarded Japanese equipments.

Japanese Machine Gun

Above: Japanese soldier testing their deadly machine gun

The problems concerning the former Japanese occupied regions involving the reconstruction of the nation from the ravages of a long drawn war both outside and inside was staggering – to say the least.

Below: Chinese refugees writhing and make great physical effort in entering French Concession during the second Sino-Japanese War – December 1937

Chinese Refugees

BATTLE OF TANKS : 1965 INDO – PAK CONFLICT

Map of Kashmir Area Above: Map of Kashmir area, showing the borders between India and Pakistan (click map to enlarge) First Indo – Pak war of 1965 India on the eve of Independence was witness to a harsh reality and horrors of partition. The very seeds of mistrust and enemity were sown on the soils of undivided India. The rising of Independent states, namely, India and Pakistan brought forth the enemity with the struggle for Kashmir. Map of Disputed Area of Kashmir Above: Map showing the disputed area of Kashmir (click map to enlarge) Maharaja Harisingh the then prince of Jammu and Kashmir signed a treaty with India and ceded the rights to India. The very battle for Kashmir started then. Battle of Tanks Above: Scene captured during the battle of tanks in the period of India – Pakistan conflict, 1965 India on its inventory had outdated and old tanks Centurion, Sherman and AMX. Pakistan boasted of top of the line tanks like Patton and Chafees. Corpses of Soldier during the Second Kashmir War Above: Corpses of soldier lying near the tank during the Second Kashmir War The first full fledged encounter between the two nations, that started in 1947, in the year 1965 it took an ugly turn with uniformed soldiers on both sides coming face to face. 1965 war can be termed as ‘The Second War of Kashmir’. The only difference is that this time round the battle sepped down the Indian state and was waged as far south as Gujarat borders. The whole of western border along Pakistan saw ptiched battles. General Ayub Khan Above: Picture of General Ayub Khan On papers and field Pakistan had superior materials and resources. General Ayub Khan (Pakistani Army) had strongly felt that India would crumble in face of stiff and sudden attack as it was weakened by the loss to China in 1962. Pakistan had the latest tanks in its forces (Patton tanks) and the most modern artillery. Also the Pak tanks outnumbered the Indian tanks. With this faith and belief Pak launched it assault on Indian territory from Rann of Kutch in Gujarat (a barren stretch of land on the western most tip of India). From there they opened all fronts in quick succession along the western borders of India namely, Rajasthan, Punjab and Jammu & Kashmir. Borderline between Pakistan and Gujarat Above: Map during Pakistan’s assault from ‘Rann of Kutch’ to Gujarat, India This war was not as large as World war but it was the biggest battle ever to take place after the world war – II. United states of America took a netural stance. The battle was pitched and fierce all along the western borders of India. Both India and Pakistan during the course of the war invaded and captured some parts of territories on either side and eventaully it ended in a stalemate. Numerous of Tanks Destroyed Above: Numerous of tanks destroyed during the India-Pakistan conflict in 1965 Pakistan bore heavy losses with more than 70% of its Patton and Chafes tanks being destroyed or captured against India’s 30%. The Khemkharan sector which saw the most intense tank war of all sectors wa virtually tuned in gravyard of Pakistany Patoon tanks. The navies on both sides had negligible role to play and not much is accounted for them in the annals of the war. UN Security Council Meeting on September 21, 1965 Above: Picture taken during UN Security Council meeting with M C Chagla giving a speech, representing India (September 21, 1965) The United Nations Security Council in September passed a resolution for unconditional ceasefire and brought the war to an end. The losses on both sides had been heavy, more so for Pakistan as its most touted and modern war machine of Patton Tanks were utterly routed and destroyed in the battle. Indian soldiers captured a large number of them as war memorablia. The war can be coined as the most fierce and intense ‘Battle of Tanks’.

 

SECOND BATTLE OF PANIPAT

Map of Mughal Empire, 1605

Above: Map of Mughal Empire, 1605 (click map to enlarge)

After Babur’s encounter with Ibrahim Lodhi at Panipat which established the Mughal empire, the town of Panipat was witness to one more encounter but this time between the Delhi ruler and prime minister of Delhi. Akbar was crowned the King at a tender age of 13 due to untimely accidental death of his father.

Akbar, The Great

Above: Painting of Akbar, The Great

Hemu (the Prime Minister) thought this was his best chance as Akbar was then fighting in Punjab along with his cheif minister Bairam Khan. Hemu invaded agra and Delhi and easily captured it due to absence of Akbar and untimely death of his father Humayun. Hemu also had Afgan war lord Adil Shah Suri as his ally who had dreams to ruling India and ousting the Mughals. Bairam Khan along with Akbar on hearing the news of Hemu crowinging himself as King marched towards Delhi and Hemu in turn sent forces to stop him.

Painting of the Second Battle of Panipat

Above: An art illustrating the incedent of the battle of Panipat

It was again on the barren stretch of Panipat that the two forces met. Hemu had sent in a huge army and a big battalion of war elephants. After the inital success it seemed that Hemu would be victorious but destiny had other ideas. An arrow pierced Hemu’s eye and and fell down. Watching this the army got discouraged and demotivated. The loss of their commander on the battle field was a big blow to the forces and it made task of Bairam Khan easy. He ploughed through the enemy rank and file. Though no where documented or authenticated it is said that Akbar then beheaded Hemu as a final winning jesture. Some historians say he just representatively touched the sword and hemu was beheaded by his commanders. But whatever had been the way, Hemu was killed and Akbar truiphed in the battle. Hemu’s wife , as per the historians, escaped from Delhi and even though search parties were sent after her no trace ever could be found of her or the family. She supposedly carried with her a large treasure from Delhi. Hemu’s head was sent to Afghanistan and his body brought to Delhi. The death of Hemu also ended the reign of Afgan war lords in the Indian history. It also marked a new begining for the Mughal empire

Ancient Edifice

Above: Pictures of Ancient Edifices still existing in India

The second battle of Panipat can be said to be start ot the golden era of Mughal Empire in India. The illustrious and magnificiant rule of the great ruler Akbar started after this battle. A learned man of arts and literature he had in his court the 9 gems from various fields of science and arts. The names of the likes of Tansen, Faiz Ahmed Faiz, Birbal and Raja Mansingh invoke a nostalgic pride in the rule. He signed strategic treaties with poweful kings of Western and Central India consolidating his gains and spreding the empire far away towars South of the country.

Finally, Mughal Empire was strongly established and the Indian subcontinent slowly gathered under the flag of this empire instead of the gathering of small princely states forever at war with each other, that it was.

Below: Flag of Mughal Emprire

Flag of Mughal Emprire