General Niazi: Traitor or Hero?

[MilSpec]

Why would WP not wage full scale war? If India did not have the capability for 2-front war, what prevented WP into occupying Delhi? All declassified document show that the war was hopless for pakistan, hence the deal was stuck to save west and give-up east.. no wishful thinking there....

because both nations in question were dirt poor, barely able to provide food clothing or shelter to its people.... that's why!

 

[Bratva]

*International sanctions,dating from 1965 with no arms supply from the US [the sole supplier]
*US was bound to intervene in E.Pakistan by SEATO/CENTO , they refused.
*There was no air cover, 14 squadron was destroyed.
*PNS Ghazi sank,ending any naval hopes of lifting the blockade
*Westen Pakistan was unable to render ANY reinforcements.
*China was weary of the US and didn't intervene
*Western Pakistan was under a naval blockade
*There was a popular uprising in the East with people against the Army
*Stockpiles had run out,including fuel and ammo
*Soldiers were outnumbered by 1-25
*They were facing air strikes at will by IAF.

Any General would have lost under these conditions. I don't care if he slept with babes and drank booze. I'll play devils advocate here and defend the man. We have squarely placed the blame for our national failures on one man's shoulders. We need to get out and do some soul searching,learn our lessons from the war in 1971, so we can have a closure.

This war was our Stalingrad, we must learn our lessons so that our enemy cannot repeat this again.

@RescueRanger @Luftwaffe

Be thankful to America for putting pressure on India to sign a surrender treaty and spare life of Pakistani soldiers. Gen. Niazi only heroic act in whole war, his signature on surrender treaty and photoshoot of surrender treaty.

The only military leader of war was Brigadier Tajammul Malik

Brig. Malik's resistance continued even after the Pakistani Eastern Command surrendered in Dacca on 16 December. He, in his staff car with flags and stars uncovered went around the streets of Bogra motivating his soldiers to keep fighting. The Indian army had by then, surrounded the city of Bogra. The Brigade Major along with some 50 ORs surrendered but the Brigadier still full of vigour refused to give up.

 

[BATMAN]

There shall be choice.. this poll is a joke!

Seriously.... you define heroism and traitorship in your way and than ask people to choose?

 

[Thirdfront]

because both nations in question were dirt poor, barely able to provide food clothing or shelter to its people.... that's why!

Well, in that case there wouldn't be a war, let alone 3 wars, one standoff still ongoing (Siachen) etc etc... The fact is, in subcontinent, we always have money for armed forces. Also, Pakistan concentrated it's forces in west due to its (in)famous policy. How can now one say WP did not attack with full potential? They tried their best and instead of breaking through, were on the verge of being overrun. When they gave up EP, India had to cease fire else international opinion would turn against it. Niazi took very sensible decision to surrender...

 

[Kompromat]

Can i see some of those declassified documents?

 

[Thirdfront]

Can i see some of those declassified documents?

Like this "http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB79/BEBB33.pdf"
Or this one "http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB79/BEBB40.pdf"
Or this one "http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB79/BEBB39.pdf"

 

[President]

Well, we all know the negative side of the story in 1971 war and how cowardly Niazi was to surrender to the Indians.

During the WWII Americans,Brits,Germans,Italians,Polish,Russians and others did surrender at times,with hundreds of thousands of men,to save their lives when the mission was lost. General Niazi was outnumbered by 1-25 both Mukti Bahinis and the Indian military.

Was his decision to surrender after the cause was lost correct which saved 90000 lives, and if or not he deserves credit for it?

Please participate in the poll.

Best regards.

Every soldier deserves respect from its country that is it, if he fought for the country, Niazi took a wise decision after having thought through the consequences, the drawback for the pak forces were two things

1) No local support
2) Logistics were not with them..if west and east were close enough or was one country, it would have made the difference, like currently Baluchistan..it is attached to Pak and so seperatist movements are checked well

 

[Kompromat]

Be thankful to America for putting pressure on India to sign a surrender treaty and spare life of Pakistani soldiers. Gen. Niazi only heroic act in whole war, his signature on surrender treaty and photoshoot of surrender treaty.

The only military leader of war was Brigadier Tajammul Malik

So the above point i wrote was in vain?

America did nothing to pressure India,to sign a surrender document.

 

[RAMPAGE]

niazi deserved to be shot dead like like a useless old coward dog!

 

[livingdead]

Niazi had to choose between being masacred by muktis (with their families) or saved by Indians.
He made the smart choice. Most probably he did not make the choice, he was ordered.

So am not sure, cant blame the guy who was following orders from his boss.

 

[Capt.Popeye]

Well, we all know the negative side of the story in 1971 war and how cowardly Niazi was to surrender to the Indians.

During the WWII Americans,Brits,Germans,Italians,Polish,Russians and others did surrender at times,with hundreds of thousands of men,to save their lives when the mission was lost. General Niazi was outnumbered by 1-25 both Mukti Bahinis and the Indian military.

Was his decision to surrender after the cause was lost correct which saved 90000 lives, and if or not he deserves credit for it?

Please participate in the poll.

Best regards.

Aeronut; Lt.Gen.A.A.K.Niazi was neither a traitor or hero. He was just plain incompetent!!
While he earned the MC and the sobriquet of "Tiger" in Burma in WW2, that had no relevance to his skills at Generalship.There is an immense difference between the requirements of a Junior Leader (Platoon or Company) and that of a GOC. A dashing Company Commander may well become a poor General. That has been shown time and again; another example being the redoubtable Musharraff.
To put it in very simple terms; the dashing "josh" of a Company Commander needs to evolve into the well-considered "hosh" of a GOC.

Finally all said and done; Niazi did well not to pursue his "Plan(?)" when the situation became clear on the ground. If he did so, there would have been a huge blood-bath of PA soldiers as well as Pakistani Civilians in erstwhile East Pakistan; apart from some increased casualties on the other side. But the result of the conflict would not have changed- it was already carved in stone.

Hence, one could say that in the aftermath of the disaster of 1971 for Pakistan; Niazi helped to preserve whatever was left of the Pakistani Army and of the Pakistani State.

 

[Capt.Popeye]

Educate kid. I am your father's age, so call me daddy.

I know what I am talking about.

Oh; did you grow up?

 

[Joe Shearer]

At the end of the argument, there can be no doubt that @Aeronaut has very effectively made his point about Niazi not necessarily being a traitor. His surrender was sensible, and sensible things are rarely admired by the kind of chairborne warrior that infests the Internet. @Capt.Popeye has pointed out that competence or lack of it was a relative matter; Niazi's fighting qualities as a junior officer did not translate into the qualities needed for high command. His plans, to guard every square inch of East Pakistan at the borders themselves, were not very admirable in military terms. However, people forget the political compulsions he had. He was forced to consider the very real possibility of the exiled political leadership of East Pakistan taking up a small patch of liberated turf, and hoisting a flag and declaring that the state of Bangladesh existed, at that point and everywhere else.

There was not much that he could have done under the circumstances, and much harm that he could have done, to the citizens of Bangladesh, to his own troops and to Indian troops by putting up the kind of imbecile resistance that some schoolboys have been suggesting.

 

[qamar1990]

Well, we all know the negative side of the story in 1971 war and how cowardly Niazi was to surrender to the Indians.

During the WWII Americans,Brits,Germans,Italians,Polish,Russians and others did surrender at times,with hundreds of thousands of men,to save their lives when the mission was lost. General Niazi was outnumbered by 1-25 both Mukti Bahinis and the Indian military.

Was his decision to surrender after the cause was lost correct which saved 90000 lives, and if or not he deserves credit for it?

Please participate in the poll.

Best regards.

i think he did the best thing by surrendering, Bangladesh was gone no matter what.
they were basically cut off from west pakistan so why let more men die for nothing?

 

[Android]

At the end of the argument, there can be no doubt that @Aeronaut has very effectively made his point about Niazi not necessarily being a traitor. His surrender was sensible, and sensible things are rarely admired by the kind of chairborne warrior that infests the Internet. @Capt.Popeye has pointed out that competence or lack of it was a relative matter; Niazi's fighting qualities as a junior officer did not translate into the qualities needed for high command. His plans, to guard every square inch of East Pakistan at the borders themselves, were not very admirable in military terms. However, people forget the political compulsions he had. He was forced to consider the very real possibility of the exiled political leadership of East Pakistan taking up a small patch of liberated turf, and hoisting a flag and declaring that the state of Bangladesh existed, at that point and everywhere else.

There was not much that he could have done under the circumstances, and much harm that he could have done, to the citizens of Bangladesh, to his own troops and to Indian troops by putting up the kind of imbecile resistance that some schoolboys have been suggesting.

is Aeronaut's claim of Pakistani soldiers being outnumbered 1-25 in east Pakistan correct???