Views of Pakistanis regarding 1965 war

[Omar1984]

I see you are just clinging to a rather naive interpretation of the events.



In short Pakistan achieved NONE of its objectives in any of the wars it started with India.

1948 - Objective - Capture completely the Independent state of Kashmir which it failed after India intevened.

1965 - Objective - Liberate Indian Kashmir in which again failed and India ending up with more hostile territory than Pakistan

1971- Enuff said.

1984 - Tactical and Strategic Indian victory in Siachen

1999 -Objective - Liberation of kashmir - Re-capture of all Indian territory by India and hence again a failure in its objective. Also anyone with an iota of mil knowledge will know that offenseive forces generally suffer larger casualties than defensive forces - which by no means defines who is victor or loser.

How can a nation that did not achieve a single objective called a victor ?

What about India? Doesnt it claim Azad Kashmir. The same part of Kashmir that you include in your fantasy maps but you can not dare to enter because that territory is under Pakistan's control.

Pakistan holds the part of Kashmir that cuts off India from Afghanistan and connects Pakistan to China. The most strategically important part of Kashmir. And it was not even the Pakistan army that captured that part of Kashmir, it was ordinary Pathan tribesmen from FATA who captured that part of Kashmir

 

[Bhairava]

Pakistan's wars with India are different from USA's war of Vietnam, or Soviet Union's war in Afghanistan. Neither fought over the disputed territory of Kashmir like Pakistan & India did.

When did Disputed Territory metric come into this ?

I thought only the 'troop strength/troop loss' and 'net loss/gain of territory' decided who won a war and not the 'achievement of objectives', 'forcing the enemy to surrender' etc which mattered.

What about India? Doesnt it claim Azad Kashmir. The same part of Kashmir that you include in your fantasy maps but can not dare to enter because that territory is under Pakistan's control.

Pakistan holds the part of Kashmir that cuts off India from Afghanistan and connects Pakistan to China. The most strategically important part of Kashmir

We claim 'politically', but we have no yet initiated an armed campaign/operation for it. Wrong comparison

 

[53fd]

I see you are just clinging to a rather naive interpretation of the events.



In short Pakistan achieved NONE of its objectives in any of the wars it started with India.

1948 - Objective - Capture completely the Independent state of Kashmir which it failed after India intevened.

1965 - Objective - Liberate Indian Kashmir in which again failed and India ending up with more hostile territory than Pakistan

1971- Enuff said.

1984 - Tactical and Strategic Indian victory in Siachen

1999 -Objective - Liberation of kashmir - Re-capture of all Indian territory by India and hence again a failure in its objective. Also anyone with an iota of mil knowledge will know that offenseive forces generally suffer larger casualties than defensive forces - which by no means defines who is victor or loser.

How can a nation that did not achieve a single objective called a victor ?

India only regained its territory in Kargil after Pakistan was pressurized internationally by the US. It was a military victory for Pakistan, where they won 1500 sq km of Kashmir (Kargil) whereas India won nothing. It was a diplomatic loss for Pakistan though.

This is from the 1999 war:

Near Tiger Hill, Point 5353 still Pak-occupied - Indian Express

In 1965 similarly, the hostile territories that were captured were returned back, just like what happened in 1999. So it was a stalemate.

I don't know where you got these war objectives from, I think you just made them up yourself.

 

[Ambitious449]

What about India? Doesnt it claim Azad Kashmir. The same part of Kashmir that you include in your fantasy maps but can not dare to enter because that territory is under Pakistan's control.

Pakistan holds the part of Kashmir that cuts off India from Afghanistan and connects Pakistan to China. The most strategically important part of Kashmir

What about 1971? where we meet our objective by creating Bangladesh on map.

In 1999- We regained our territory back from intruders. Objective met.

As per Kashmir every day of status quo will make Indian claim on Kashmir stronger.

 

[53fd]

At the end of the day, Pakistan controls what India claims is part of its integral territory, whereas India controls nothing of what Pakistan claims to be its integral territory. Simple.

 

[Omar1984]

All you indians are in denial. How can you people deny that you crossed international borders and invaded Lahore then we kicked you out. They probably left that part out in hindustani textbooks

 

[alimukhtar]

We claim 'politically', but we have no yet initiated an armed campaign/operation for it. Wrong comparison

Roflz,,,, if you claim it politically den y u deployed 100 armed personnel on a single kashmiri in IOK? Gud joke bro........

 

[Bhairava]

India only regained its territory in Kargil after Pakistan was pressurized internationally by the US. It was a military victory for Pakistan, where they won 1500 sq km of Kashmir (Kargil) whereas India won nothing. It was a diplomatic loss for Pakistan though.

So you say that Pakistani NLI troops were winning in Kargil and for some unknown reason your PM dropped all the victories and went to US to accept the ceasefire ?

Does it make sense to even you ?

This is from the 1999 war:

Near Tiger Hill, Point 5353 still Pak-occupied - Indian Express

I never knew the objective of Pakistan in Kargil was to capture Point 5353. Congrats.

In 1965 similarly, the hostile territories that were captured were returned back, just like what happened in 1999. So it was a stalemate.

They were returned as a part of 'ceasefire' agreement, not as a part of war. At the end of war we had the net gain in territory and the upper hand.

I don't know where you got these war objectives from, I think you just made them up yourself.

Any one with a rudimentary knowledge of Indo-Pak history will know that.

 

[53fd]

When did Disputed Territory metric come into this ?

I thought only the 'troop strength/troop loss' and 'net loss/gain of territory' decided who won a war and not the 'achievement of objectives', 'forcing the enemy to surrender' etc which mattered.

The Pakistan-India war had a different dynamic than the US-Afghanistan/Vietnam, Soviet Union-Afghanistan wars; so they must be assessed differently.

 

[alimukhtar]

All you indians are in denial. How can you people deny that you crossed international borders and invaded Lahore then we kicked you out. They probably left that part out in hindustani textbooks

not probably, off course dey 4got to publish about dere wet pants in 65

 

[Ambitious449]

All you indians are in denial. How can you people deny that you crossed international borders and invaded Lahore then we kicked you out. They probably left that part out in hindustani textbooks

I think you guys think from heart rather than brain and become very emotional when it comes to war and India. You should learn from India and China on how to ice brain cold when it comes to facts and figures. No offence.

 

[Omar1984]

What about 1971? where we meet our objective by creating Bangladesh on map.

In 1971- We regained our territory back from intruders. Objective met.

As per Kashmir every day of status quo will make Indian claim on Kashmir stronger.

1971 was a blessing in disguise. That huge population in that small piece of land they would be flooding to our cities. They instead are flooding into your cities

Even our Sindh province is huger in land mass compared to Bangladesh.

If you are happy with the status quo, then why fool your generation with a fantasy map and include a territory that no indian can even come near.

 

[Bhairava]

At the end of the day, Pakistan controls what India claims is part of its integral territory, whereas India controls nothing of what Pakistan claims to be its integral territory. Simple.

I thought Pakistan considers Jammu nad Kashmir as its territory. Anyway.

If it makes sense to you people that - you were winning and then all of a sudden your PM dropped everything, went to US and agreed to a humiliating ceasefire coupled with loss of face worldwide - is a victory, More power to you.

BTW lets concentrate on '65 war. I see you are desperately trying to de-rail the thread after being bunker-busted on every claim.

 

[53fd]

So you say that Pakistani NLI troops were winning in Kargil and for some unknown reason your PM dropped all the victories and went to US to accept the ceasefire ?

Yes, Pakistan had gained 1500 sq km of Indian held Kashmir (& India had gained nothing of Pakistani territory) before India went to the US to force Pakistan to accept the ceasefire.

 

[harshad]

At the end of the day, Pakistan controls what India claims is part of its integral territory, whereas India controls nothing of what Pakistan claims to be its integral territory. Simple.

seriously mate lol,thats the best you can come up with?was it india that invaded free kashmir?was it india which said 1 pakistani soldiers equals 10 indian soldier?
india controles nothing of what pakistan claims to be integral territory but it had a stratigic victory in seperating your integral territioy of east pakistan