1971 East Pakistan - A Veteran speaks

[Jackdaws]

Not battles or wars. Changing the world. But ok...

Changing the world - Napoleon for sure. The who idea of the nation-state, diplomacy etc. come from him. The Napoleonic code is still the blueprint for civil laws.

 

[Joe Shearer]

@Joe Shearer And to add; i can't recall a single great commander in history who fought a battle on the basis of realism and changed the world. If you know of any, please do tell me. And here we keep discussing scenarios and ground realities.

If your point is that a successful commander takes risks and wins, no argument with that.

If your point omits to include the safety precautions that even the greatest commanders take,then it is a mistake.

Take Napoleon; where he took precautions, he won. In those cases, the risks are clearly visible, but his precautionary measures are rarely remembered. This would take some time to expand on, but consider that whenever he failed to take precautions, he lost. The entire Russian campaign, for one; the Spanish campaign even before that; the Battle of the Nations (Leipzig) for another; Waterloo needs hardly be mentioned.

Battlefield commanders who fought in the field themselves are a completely different kettle of fish; Napoleon, for instance, was noteworthy for never getting involved in the cut and thrust of actual combat (losing his boot in the near-capture by Austrian troops in Italy was an aberration).

Alexander was the other kind; he led his charges himself, right at the apex of the Companions, and perhaps you had him in mind when you made your observation. It fits him as it does no other. Gustavus Adolphus, Charles XII and Frederick the Great come to mind; how would you characterise them, as risk-takers without qualification, or as risk-takers who left room for recovery from errors?

In recent times, might I remind you of MacArthur's horrible example? Or Rommel vs. Montgomery?

You should really open a new thread and invite @PanzerKiel into that. He is put off for some reason and needs to be lured back.

Depends on the Indian. Pakistanis are more homogenous. But obviously an Indian Punjabi and Pakistani Punjabi are closer linguistically and ethnically than an Indian from Punjab and an Indian from Karnataka. Similar case with Sindhis and Rajasthanis. But yes, besides these groups it's different. I had read that Brahui is a South Indian language still spoken in Pak and only in Pak but I have never met anyone who speaks it.


De Gaulle.

Brahui is not a South Indian language; it is a language from the Dravidian language family.

Changing the world - Napoleon for sure. The who idea of the nation-state, diplomacy etc. come from him. The Napoleonic code is still the blueprint for civil laws.

No, no, no, by the hair on my chinny-chin-chin!

 

[Jackdaws]

If your point is that a successful commander takes risks and wins, no argument with that.

If your point omits to include the safety precautions that even the greatest commanders take,then it is a mistake.

Take Napoleon; where he took precautions, he won. In those cases, the risks are clearly visible, but his precautionary measures are rarely remembered. This would take some time to expand on, but consider that whenever he failed to take precautions, he lost. The entire Russian campaign, for one; the Spanish campaign even before that; the Battle of the Nations (Leipzig) for another; Waterloo needs hardly be mentioned.

Battlefield commanders who fought in the field themselves are a completely different kettle of fish; Napoleon, for instance, was noteworthy for never getting involved in the cut and thrust of actual combat (losing his boot in the near-capture by Austrian troops in Italy was an aberration).

Alexander was the other kind; he led his charges himself, right at the apex of the Companions, and perhaps you had him in mind when you made your observation. It fits him as it does no other. Gustavus Adolphus, Charles XII and Frederick the Great come to mind; how would you characterise them, as risk-takers without qualification, or as risk-takers who left room for recovery from errors?

In recent times, might I remind you of MacArthur's horrible example? Or Rommel vs. Montgomery?

You should really open a new thread and invite @PanzerKiel into that. He is put off for some reason and needs to be lured back.



Brahui is not a South Indian language; it is a language from the Dravidian language family.



No, no, no, by the hair on my chinny-chin-chin!

No energy left today. Will discuss with you at length. Good night.

 

[Ace of Spades]

If your point is that a successful commander takes risks and wins, no argument with that.

Yes

If your point omits to include the safety precautions that even the greatest commanders take,then it is a mistake.

Take Napoleon; where he took precautions, he won. In those cases, the risks are clearly visible, but his precautionary measures are rarely remembered. This would take some time to expand on, but consider that whenever he failed to take precautions, he lost. The entire Russian campaign, for one; the Spanish campaign even before that; the Battle of the Nations (Leipzig) for another; Waterloo needs hardly be mentioned.

Battlefield commanders who fought in the field themselves are a completely different kettle of fish; Napoleon, for instance, was noteworthy for never getting involved in the cut and thrust of actual combat (losing his boot in the near-capture by Austrian troops in Italy was an aberration).

Alexander was the other kind; he led his charges himself, right at the apex of the Companions, and perhaps you had him in mind when you made your observation. It fits him as it does no other. Gustavus Adolphus, Charles XII and Frederick the Great come to mind; how would you characterise them, as risk-takers without qualification, or as risk-takers who left room for recovery from errors?

In recent times, might I remind you of MacArthur's horrible example? Or Rommel vs. Montgomery?

You should really open a new thread and invite @PanzerKiel into that. He is put off for some reason and needs to be lured back.

There are lots of examples, again not about blood and thrust. My point is regarding focusing on realities. The ones who changed the world, if started looking at ground realities won't ever had done wonders. Of course, wars were won against adversaries. The approach is it what matters.

 

[Joe Shearer]

Sorry veteran : lol:

Let me put it this way; I saw society ladies handing out hand-knitted woollens to jawans on trains on their way to the front in NEFA in 62.

Then we saw jets streaking over our school in 1965 and were told later by our Head Master (an Air Force man) that they were Pakistani Sabres beating up Kalaikunda, that was not very far from us.

I saw refugee camps at close quarters in 71, and am still looking for an historical photograph that might interest folks on PDF.

When Kargil happened, the pressure on one parent company, HAL, to complete the ALH became enormous; I watched as they struggled to put it together under constant IAF prodding.

The ASWAC programme fell apart in front of me; I nearly got beaten up by fighter pilots who were attached to that programme for daring to say that it would never fly.

So, yes, I've been around.

 

[truthseeker2010]

In simple terms, this amounts to 'whataboutery'; A: XYZ is a fact that happened to S. B: So what? It is a fact that has happened to T today.

"blatant over exaggeration of India's capabilities to quell insecurities of the masses, feeding them opium of radicalization as well as extreme gross underestimation of your adversary"

Who comes into your mind after reading this? modi? amit? bjp?

 

[Joe Shearer]

"blatant over exaggeration of India's capabilities to quell insecurities of the masses, feeding them opium of radicalization as well as extreme gross underestimation of your adversary"

Who comes into your mind after reading this? modi? amit? bjp?

Some random idiot for whom English is not a first language. Maybe not even a second language.

What does it mean, anyway?

 

[truthseeker2010]

Some random idiot for whom English is not a first language. Maybe not even a second language.

What does it mean, anyway?

I thought you were professional, but i guess you have joined the ranks of ordinary indians.

 

[Joe Shearer]

I thought you were professional, but i guess you have joined the ranks of ordinary indians.

I was never an extraordinary Indian, and I remain a former professional. That kind of baiting that you indulged in is disrespectful to say the least, manipulative to say it correctly. My views on the terrible government that we have remain unchanged - something that I have been warning about from 2002 onwards, on this forum from 2009 onwards - but I am not a pawn for manipulation.

 

[truthseeker2010]

I was never an extraordinary Indian, and I remain a former professional. That kind of baiting that you indulged in is disrespectful to say the least, manipulative to say it correctly. My views on the terrible government that we have remain unchanged - something that I have been warning about from 2002 onwards, on this forum from 2009 onwards - but I am not a pawn for manipulation.

I said the same, the sort of governments pak had till 71, are the same india has today, and can lead to disintegration if they remain business as usual.

 

[Joe Shearer]

I said the same, the sort of governments pak had till 71, are the same india has today, and can lead to disintegration if they remain business as usual.

They may; I don't know if you have actually read my posts, because this is precisely what they say.

So how does that justify your personal attacks? I am not offended, only mildly amused that you think you can substitute thinking with sneers.

 

[Goenitz]