CIA declassified document shows more Indian losses in 1965

[Pakpak]

Some points:

-India lost around 4000 to 6000 dead (as opposed to the 3000 that they say)
-India held more Pakistani land tho this does not take in account the land held by 3000 Pakistani infiltrators in IOK who still held it till the ceasefire
-India lost more tanks around 300 to 250
-The document says considering Pakistan's size India did poor and failed to get Lahore or Sialkot

I mean I expected some Indian fudging after how badly Modi Govt lied during the Feb fiasco.

After the destruction in Ukraine and the Russians being held and finding it very difficult to hold cities, I hope is a message to Pakistani and Indian establishments that holding cities with a few hundred thousand people, never mind the tens of MILLIONS our cities have, is impossible and not worth the effort.

That's why I see full scale war very unlikely between both countries.

Interested to hear thoughts

https://pdfhost.io/v/kO8to1c2O_OUTCOME_OF_INDIAPAKISTAN_WARFARE

 

[Stewie]

Countries tend to do that during wars. We know given the size of India, whatever happened in 1965, India in a way lost because they failed to make any gains.

 

[DeadlyVenom]

I won't take anything that India has ever said regarding any war seriously after seeing their coverage of bombing terrorist camps when in reality they bombed a few trees

 

[Stewie]

I won't take anything that India has ever said regarding any war seriously after seeing their coverage of bombing terrorist camps when in reality they bombed a few trees

I dont know about that. They have historically been fairly better at this stuff till Modi came along, and now they have gone the typical Nawaz Sharif unashamed deceit and lie route.

 

[Kroll]

Considering that modi thinks Pakistan would be beaten easily coupled with the fanatical hatred of his regime for Pakistan and Muslims, I wouldn't put anything past him.

 

[Lego20]

It was the same result in 1971. Pakistan was winning till dec 15th. Dont know what happened to Niazi and his 90000 people the next day.

Also same thing in Kargil. It was mujheedin fighting there we thought. Dont know how they transformed to Pakistan army regulars when captured/killed.

Also all the terrorist attacks including 26/11 was also crazy indians blowing themselves up. Dont know how Kasab landed up in Indian custody.

Same thing with Fatf. Dont know why pakistan finds itself there.

Same thing with Osama, taliban, hakani, ficn etc.

And there is someone who opened a thread worrying about image of pakistan with russia vote.

 

[ElRaja]

of course india lies, but it doesnt matter, so does every country.

 

[Itachi]

So.... US narratives shouldn't be trusted when it is against Muslim countries but it should be taken as gospel from the Bible when it is about non Islamic countries....

I guess anyone can see what is the perspective here.

 

[Salma_T]

All countries lie, when it comes to this stuff!

 

[Clueless]

Since, the very first line states India won the war. I think the posters will accept that Pakistan lost the 1965 war.

 

[captain.hansolo]

So.... US narratives shouldn't be trusted when it is against Muslim countries but it should be taken as gospel from the Bible when it is about non Islamic countries....

I guess anyone can see what is the perspective here.

Selective acceptance of facts aside, I do find this credible. Indian losses were likely higher but some commentary about supposedly the 1965 war being a loss for india is nonsense. It was very much a stalemate.

 

[RexRex]

https://pdfhost.io/v/kO8to1c2O_OUTCOME_OF_INDIAPAKISTAN_WARFARE

First line of this CIA memo says India won the war. Yet, every year Pakistan has an official holiday celebrating the 1965 'victory' .. and you start a thread about Indians fudging history ? Too funny

 

[Cpt. Rishwat]

It's common knowledge in Pakistan.

 

[Mamoon]

1965 was Pakistan’s failure - they started a war that they couldn’t win. In fact, it nearly backfired.

War is not about numbers. It is about the purpose and what you get out of it. Pakistan gained nothing.

With the death of Nehru and the emergence of a weak leader like Shastri, Pakistan thought it was the time to attack Kashmir and take control of J&K.

“Operation Gibraltar” proved to be a massive failure because instead of engaged our forces in Kashmir only, India also decided to attack Lahore.

Since Pakistan did not have the numbers to fight on two fronts, we tucked our tail between our legs and ran away from Kashmir to save Lahore.

So from being the aggressors, we suddenly became the defenders and this miscalculated attack is now celebrated as “Defense Day” and we spend billions of rupees every year to commemorate our miscalculated attack.

We wouldn’t have anything to defend if we weren’t dumb enough to attack in the first place.

This goes to show how strong our military propaganda is. We somehow managed to make a mass surrender and retreat look a triumph.



This is how you win a war. Pakistan alienated East Pakistan through systematic discrimination and India sa an opportunity to humiliate Pakistan and did so in style. This image will forever define India’s dominance over Pakistan it will always give India bragging rights.

 

[Mamoon]

The intro of the paper mentioned in the opening post:

In finite military terms India won the September war with Pakistan. India seized the most territory and suffered less relative loss in manpower and material.

Moreover, when the seize-fire occurred, India was in a much better position to continue the fighting.

My my my )

Looks like no one, including the thread creator, bothered to read the paper before doing bhangra.

 

[Cpt. Rishwat]

Imagine living in Pakistan being an Arsenal supporter and doing a bhangra over India's victory in 1971. The only war which India managed to win over little Pakistan, that too because of logistical reasons.

Why couldn't they win two earlier wars? Because they aren't good at fighting wars, that is the bitter truth of it.

 

[Major]

1965 was Pakistan’s failure - they started a war that they couldn’t win. In fact, it nearly backfired.

War is not about numbers. It is about the purpose and what you get out of it. Pakistan gained nothing.

With the death of Nehru and the emergence of a weak leader like Shastri, Pakistan thought it was the time to attack Kashmir and take control of J&K.

“Operation Gibraltar” proved to be a massive failure because instead of engaged our forces in Kashmir only, India also decided to attack Lahore.

Since Pakistan did not have the numbers to fight on two fronts, we tucked our tail between our legs and ran away from Kashmir to save Lahore.

So from being the aggressors, we suddenly became the defenders and this miscalculated attack is now celebrated as “Defense Day” and we spend billions of rupees every year to commemorate our miscalculated attack.

We wouldn’t have anything to defend if we weren’t dumb enough to attack in the first place.

This goes to show how strong our military propaganda is. We somehow managed to make a mass surrender and retreat look a triumph.

View attachment 115219

This is how you win a war. Pakistan alienated East Pakistan through systematic discrimination and India sa an opportunity to humiliate Pakistan and did so in style. This image will forever define India’s dominance over Pakistan it will always give India bragging rights.

your opinion on the ran of Kutch which India tried to capture and than Pakistan captured it back..

It was what started the 1965 war

 

[Stewie]

your opinion on the ran of Kutch which India tried to capture and than Pakistan captured it back..

It was what started the 1965 war

Are you seriously asking for his opinion? The one who non conforms for the sake of nonconformity?
lol

 

[Clueless]

Imagine living in Pakistan being an Arsenal supporter and doing a bhangra over India's victory in 1971. The only war which India managed to win over little Pakistan, that too because of logistical reasons.

Why couldn't they win two earlier wars? Because they aren't good at fighting wars, that is the bitter truth of it.

Does someone need to quote the very pdf file the OP has quoted and selectively cherry picked some stats for his fantasy? Plz. just read the first para atleast, some reading will be good for you.

 

[Clueless]

your opinion on the ran of Kutch which India tried to capture and than Pakistan captured it back..

It was what started the 1965 war

and so the entire summary goes point by point.

 

[Clueless]

your opinion on the ran of Kutch which India tried to capture and than Pakistan captured it back..

It was what started the 1965 war

Point 7 kind of explains the mass confusion among the most Pakistani poster and population at large. Propaganda is a very powerful tool but a source of mass disillusion.

 

[Major]

View attachment 115220

and so the entire summary goes point by point.

what has this go to do what i asked?

Its seem as if you are not aware of the 1965 war. I dont blame you, alot of people dont know about what actually happened.

The war that is discussed, those things happened much later, the actual issue was the Rann of Kutch..

In your other post where you said Pakistanis are fed propaganda, ironically, you yourself dont know what happened and also been fed propaganda by your own country.

Ran of kutch is a marsh land, thus, the whole place is inhabitable. However, according to the US companies, there is gas in that area, thus a very important land. Due to the marshi nature of the land, building borders on that place is much difficult.

Anyways, India had made army movements on that land and had captured Pakistani territory, Pakistan than fought back and claimed their land back. When Pakistan saw they won, plus few years ago India was handed a beating by Chinese, Ayub Khan decided to go for Kashmir aswell. Thats when the actual war had started.

Had India won the actual war, the war would never had been declared a stalemate, the issue was, India started it by capturing the Rann of Kutch. Pakistan became too ambitious and went after Kashmir after kicking Indian buttocks in the Rann.

Hence, the matter had to settle on a stalemate

 

[Major]

View attachment 115221

Point 7 kind of explains the mass confusion among the most Pakistani poster and population at large. Propaganda is a very powerful tool but a source of mass disillusion.

Before calling others disillusion and bash other govts for Propoganda, its better to read up on the background of the war, the Rann of kutch issue and what led to this war.

I agree the 1965 war victory is just a propoganda, but plz do bother to read what led to the war.

At the end of the day, both nations got their land back.

 

[Major]

Are you seriously asking for his opinion? The one who non conforms for the sake of nonconformity?
lol

i am interested to know, because when it comes to 1965 war, both Indians and Pakistanis would go on rumbling about the causalities, captured land etc, but very rarely do people know how the war started. Some think that Pakistan just decided to wake up one day and attack kashmir which is not even true. The false story is a also a blame on the Pakistani govt because the actual victory of that war has always been overlooked. India has benefitted by our propaganda because our credibility than gets destroyed.

The actual victory that should had been celebrated and used to make the nation feel proud was the Rann of Kutch we got back. That battle also shows who started the problems first.

I dont even blame Ayub Khan for what he tried to do after that as it was an opportunity and was time to give back. It would had ended as a stalemate and both countries giving back what they captured because of Rann of Kutch capturing that India started.

 

[JaDed]

Imagine living in Pakistan being an Arsenal supporter and doing a bhangra over India's victory in 1971. The only war which India managed to win over little Pakistan, that too because of logistical reasons.

Why couldn't they win two earlier wars? Because they aren't good at fighting wars, that is the bitter truth of it.

Actually if you read what happened to Junagadh and Hyderabad, you will realize it’s more on leadership than Indian Defense.

One can only imagine how inept and terrible Nehru would had been trusting western organizations unlike Sardar Patel.

 

[JaDed]

So.... US narratives shouldn't be trusted when it is against Muslim countries but it should be taken as gospel from the Bible when it is about non Islamic countries....

I guess anyone can see what is the perspective here.

Came to post that here

 

[Clueless]

Before calling others disillusion and bash other govts for Propoganda, its better to read up on the background of the war, the Rann of kutch issue and what led to this war.

I agree the 1965 war victory is just a propoganda, but plz do bother to read what led to the war.

At the end of the day, both nations got their land back.

Just using a third party source, which the OP had used to cherry pick and present his own spin on it.
Have I talked about anything about initiation and anything else.
I am solely quoting from a "Third party source" which was thankfully provided by a Pakistani poster here.
The word "disillusionment" is used in the source provided not my own word here.
So plz, dont put words in my mouth. Thank you!

If you claim to better informed than a CIA dossier from 1965, you are welcome to make that claim.

 

[Major]

First line of this CIA memo says India won the war. Yet, every year Pakistan has an official holiday celebrating the 1965 'victory' .. and you start a thread about Indians fudging history ? Too funny

Since, the very first line states India won the war. I think the posters will accept that Pakistan lost the 1965 war.

Since, the very first line states India won the war. I think the posters will accept that Pakistan lost the 1965 war.

Your english seems to be weak, and no offence for that.

If you read the first word of the mentioned line, it says in finite military's terms

This basically states that in the context of pure military view of things.

War win is decided upon case to case, and in this case, the land that was gained and kept would be determined.

Both India and Pakistan had to give up the land it had captured. When india was losing the kashmir area, they opened the front in sialkot/lahore.

The ultimate goal of both country was never achieved and that would had been classified as a vicotry. India could not captured Rann of Kutch fully, and Pakistan couldnt capture and held Kashmir fully, nor could India with the territories it gained in the West

................................................................................................................. [MENTION=90888]Itachi[/MENTION] i agree with your argument of selective acceptance by posters here. Good thing OP messed up and did cherry picking, now with the ss of the document share he cant track back saying CIA documents are fake..

if I remember correctly, posters on this forum dont even accept the CIA/FBI papers on Osama bin Laden which were found in the abbotabad compound

 

[Major]

Just using a third party source, which the OP had used to cherry pick and present his own spin on it.
Have I talked about anything about initiation and anything else.
I am solely quoting from a "Third party source" which was thankfully provided by a Pakistani poster here.
The word "disillusionment" is used in the source provided not my own word here.
So plz, dont put words in my mouth. Thank you!

If you claim to better informed than a CIA dossier from 1965, you are welcome to make that claim.

you are digging a hole now.

I am not even talking about 1965 "victory"

Again, before pasting sources and doing bhangra on some source, plz plz plz do bother to read about the background of the 1965 war, or else you will make a mockery of yourself in this thread. The sources upon which you will do Bhangra would be about the 1965 war pertaining to Lahore/Sialkot and Kashmir.

Rann of Kutch is a battle that doesnt get identified as the war of 1965 but is the main starting point of it
The Rann of Kutch land that India captured was recaptured back by Pakistan....

This is the topic i asked from about Mamoon, before you decide to quote me with SS of the PDF which has again NOTHING to do with what I asked about

 

[Clueless]

you are digging a hole now.

I am not even talking about 1965 "victory"

Again, before pasting sources and doing bhangra on some source, plz plz plz do bother to read about the background of the 1965 war, or else you will make a mockery of yourself in this thread. The sources upon which you will do Bhangra would be about the 1965 war pertaining to Lahore/Sialkot and Kashmir.

Rann of Kutch is a battle that doesnt get identified as the war of 1965 but is the main starting point of it
The Rann of Kutch land that India captured was recaptured back by Pakistan....

This is the topic i asked from about Mamoon, before you decide to quote me with SS of the PDF which has again NOTHING to do with what I asked about

since, the thread is based on the pdf, you are just taking a convenient tangent. Nothing "Major" about what you wanna say.

 

[Pakpak]

Just using a third party source, which the OP had used to cherry pick and present his own spin on it.
Have I talked about anything about initiation and anything else.
I am solely quoting from a "Third party source" which was thankfully provided by a Pakistani poster here.
The word "disillusionment" is used in the source provided not my own word here.
So plz, dont put words in my mouth. Thank you!

If you claim to better informed than a CIA dossier from 1965, you are welcome to make that claim.

You're a thick troll

I didn't cherry pick anything nor did I comment on who won or didn't so not sure why your chaddi is in a twist. I commented on the ** numbers India has always given to the world.

Major has replied to your points better than I could.

 

[Pakpak]

Your english seems to be weak, and no offence for that.

If you read the first word of the mentioned line, it says in finite military's terms

This basically states that in the context of pure military view of things.

War win is decided upon case to case, and in this case, the land that was gained and kept would be determined.

Both India and Pakistan had to give up the land it had captured. When india was losing the kashmir area, they opened the front in sialkot/lahore.

The ultimate goal of both country was never achieved and that would had been classified as a vicotry. India could not captured Rann of Kutch fully, and Pakistan couldnt capture and held Kashmir fully, nor could India with the territories it gained in the West

................................................................................................................. [MENTION=90888]Itachi[/MENTION] i agree with your argument of selective acceptance by posters here. Good thing OP messed up and did cherry picking, now with the ss of the document share he cant track back saying CIA documents are fake..

if I remember correctly, posters on this forum dont even accept the CIA/FBI papers on Osama bin Laden which were found in the abbotabad compound

I didn't mess up on anything. Nor did I dispute anything in the report.

I highlighted one facet of the report and asked everyone to discuss it.

It was in simple English so I'm not sure why the confusion. I'm also not the ones who doubt the Bin Laden story so maybe you should stop painting everyone with the same brush?

 

[Major]

since, the thread is based on the pdf, you are just taking a convenient tangent. Nothing "Major" about what you wanna say.

wait what?

It seems you have no idea what you are talking about.

Look at the post I made originally, it was about the rann of kutch. You came in qouted me and replied me with SS of the document. You showed me the portions regarding which I never discussed. Thus, you have acted as "clueless"

You seem bothered by the fact that Rann of Kutch defeat India got, and before you decide to post more SS, let me post one for you.

 

[Major]

I didn't mess up on anything. Nor did I dispute anything in the report.

I highlighted one facet of the report and asked everyone to discuss it.

It was in simple English so I'm not sure why the confusion. I'm also not the ones who doubt the Bin Laden story so maybe you should stop painting everyone with the same brush?

sorry for that.

I did not meant you when it comes to posters who doubt CIA and FBI.

Yes, if you do not dispute anything else from this report, than i take my words back and apologies for it

 

[Clueless]

wait what?

It seems you have no idea what you are talking about.

Look at the post I made originally, it was about the rann of kutch. You came in qouted me and replied me with SS of the document. You showed me the portions regarding which I never discussed. Thus, you have acted as "clueless"

You seem bothered by the fact that Rann of Kutch defeat India got, and before you decide to post more SS, let me post one for you.

View attachment 115223

Plz, tell me where did i refute anything about Rann of Kutch?
If you are going to refer to a third party source, refer to neutral source properly.
You have put your own spin on the Rann of Kutch incident, where every source in the world but Pakistani sources show that Pakistan was the aggressor in the 65 hostilities.

 

[Clueless]

I did not cherry pick points from the summary, but taking in its WHOLE, as much better reliable neutral source than any Indian or Pakistani version of 65 war can be.

 

[Major]

Plz, tell me where did i refute anything about Rann of Kutch?
If you are going to refer to a third party source, refer to neutral source properly.
You have put your own spin on the Rann of Kutch incident, where every source in the world but Pakistani sources show that Pakistan was the aggressor in the 65 hostilities.

Oh bhai plz do bother to read history..

Not even knowing the actual story of 1965 and still jumpingninto a thread and acting as an expert. Just making a fool out of yourself

65 war atarts from rann of kutch

 

[Clueless]

Oh bhai plz do bother to read history..

Not even knowing the actual story of 1965 and still jumpingninto a thread and acting as an expert. Just making a fool out of yourself

65 war atarts from rann of kutch

oh bhai plz bother to read posts properly.
Where did i state Rann of Kutch incidents didnt happen or Pakistan did not edge out India their.
As for the war part, plz show me a link where it actually states 1965 war started with rann of kutch?
Simple English, "START OF WAR" and not the incidents leading to the 65 war.
You seem to be writing your own version of history here.

 

[Major]

oh bhai plz bother to read posts properly.
Where did i state Rann of Kutch incidents didnt happen or Pakistan did not edge out India their.
As for the war part, plz show me a link where it actually states 1965 war started with rann of kutch?
Simple English, "START OF WAR" and not the incidents leading to the 65 war.
You seem to be writing your own version of history here.

if ran of kutch never happened 1965 war would not had happened.

Anyways, you need to learn your history before rallying around here on blind nationalism.

You have a good username

 

[Clueless]

if ran of kutch never happened 1965 war would not had happened.

Anyways, you need to learn your history before rallying around here on blind nationalism.

You have a good username

Are we changing goalposts here now? You are contradicting yourself. Man you can have a "Major" debate with yourself.

 

[Itachi]

if ran of kutch never happened 1965 war would not had happened.

Anyways, you need to learn your history before rallying around here on blind nationalism.

You have a good username

https://www.dawn.com/news/839808/war-blunders-in-1965

This article from dawn paints a different picture though. It takes account of the actions post rann of kutch skirmish and seems to reflect Pakistan as the aggressor side.

 

[Major]

https://www.dawn.com/news/839808/war-blunders-in-1965

This article from dawn paints a different picture though. It takes account of the actions post rann of kutch skirmish and seems to reflect Pakistan as the aggressor side.

Doenst matter, the whole war would never had happened if Rann of Kutch event didnt take place. Pakistan got its land back and took advantage of the situation in hand

 

[Itachi]

Doenst matter, the whole war would never had happened if Rann of Kutch event didnt take place. Pakistan got its land back and took advantage of the situation in hand

A war such as 1965 can not happen based upon just 1 minor skirmish regardless who was aggressor. You may disagree with it but from history, wars happen due to accumulation of reasons.