
The U.S. Navy Almost Fought the Soviets Over Bangladesh - dforrestwilson
https://warisboring.com/in-1971-the-u-s-navy-almost-fought-the-soviets-over-bangladesh-c65489bc72c0#.prw727v0q
======
whack
_" Archer Blood, the State Department’s consul general in Bengal, sent a cable
to Washington on March 27. “Here in Decca we are mute and horrified witnesses
to a reign of terror by the Pak[istani] military,” Blood wrote. “Evidence
continues to mount that the MLA authorities have list of AWAMI League
supporters whom they are systematically eliminating by seeking them out in
their homes and shooting them down.

“Among those marked for extinction in addition to the A.L. hierarchy are
student leaders and university faculty. …

“Moreover, with the support of the Pak[istani] military, non-Bengali Muslims
are systematically attacking poor people’s quarters and murdering Bengalis and
Hindus.”

He and 20 diplomats later sent a famous protest telegram in which he called
what was occurring “genocide.” Kissinger responded to Blood’s complaints by
dismissing him from his post. “The use of power against seeming odds pays
off,” Kissinger observed regarding the crackdown.

The death toll is commonly estimated between at 200,000 and 3 million.
Kissinger’s tacit support for the massacres in Bangladesh is one of many
incidents contributing to his poor record on human rights."

"In July 1971, Kissinger had already secretly flown from Pakistan to Beijing
for the first diplomatic meeting between the United States and Communist
China. “Yahya hasn’t had such fun since the last Hindu massacre!” Kissinger
remarked."_

Wow. It's hard to believe that this is the same Kissinger that's still held in
high regard today.

~~~
GeoffKnauth
I doubt many people really hold Kissinger in "high regard."

~~~
travmatt
Hillary Clinton and many in similar high circles they absolutely do. The ones
actually crafting American foreign policy.

~~~
whyenot
There is also a personal connection. The Clintons and the Kissingers also
usually spend Christmas together at Oscar del la Renta's villa in the
Dominican Repulic [as has been widely reported by Gawker and other
"tabloids"].

------
amalag
An excellent two sentence summary of the Kashmir conflicts:

"Pakistan and India almost immediately went to war over Kashmir, a Muslim-
majority state whose Hindu ruler elected to join India in exchange for
assistance putting down a local revolt. The incident escalated to a full-scale
confrontation which simmers to this day."

A very nice article, one thing that can be added is that Indira Gandhi was in
favor of entering the war far earlier but was dissuaded by army staff who
waited for the monsoons. The monsoons would make China's entry into the war
impossible. So it was not just chance that China did not enter. From
Wikipedia:

"Towards the end of April 1971, Indira Gandhi, who was Prime Minister of India
at that time, asked Manekshaw if he was ready to go to war with Pakistan.
Manekshaw refused, saying that his single armoured division and two infantry
divisions were deployed elsewhere, that only 13 of his 189 tanks were fit to
fight, and that they would be competing for rail carriage with the grain
harvest at that point of time. He also pointed out that the Himalayan passes
would soon open up, with the forthcoming monsoon in East Pakistan, which would
result in heavy flooding. When Indira Gandhi asked the cabinet to leave the
room and the chief to stay, he offered to resign. She declined to accept it,
but sought his advice. He then said he could guarantee victory if she would
allow him to prepare for the conflict on his terms, and set a date for it.
These were acceded to by the Prime Minister."

~~~
chimeracoder
> An excellent two sentence summary of the Kashmir conflicts

I really don't think that's a great summary of the conflict. It's the common
narrative that's put forth, particularly in the US, because it makes sense
through the lens of US foreign policy, but it doesn't really explain the full
background and proper historical or political context.

I'm not going to provide an alternative, though, because I don't think the
background of the conflict _can_ be summarized in two sentences, any more than
World War I can. Sure, you can say "the war happened because Franz Ferdinand
got shot. This set off a chain of events which escalated into a global war"
and you wouldn't be _wrong_. But that's the sort of explanation that really
only makes sense of you already know the answer, which is the most dangerous
kind.

~~~
amalag
Yes that two sentence summary does not even mention that Pakistan was
invading, instead it says "local revolt" and it does not mention that India
went to the UN instead of settling matters with their military strength which
would have avoided embedding Pakistan into the matter.

------
bahularora
If anyone is interested here are few videos of premiers of both country
discussing 1971 situation:

Indian PM Indra Gandhi
[https://youtu.be/_MATAqeiL-4](https://youtu.be/_MATAqeiL-4)

Pakistani General and President Y Khan
[https://youtu.be/v903MselZ3o](https://youtu.be/v903MselZ3o)

I always felt odd that US supported a military government over a democratic
one.

~~~
chimeracoder
> I always felt odd that US supported a military government over a democratic
> one

The US supports authoritarianism over democracy all the time. Democracy, in
the eyes of US foreign policy rhetoric, is only legitimate if the
democratically elected government is friendly towards the US and aligned with
US interests.

The US has no problems with toppling a democratically elected government in
order to install a dictator or puppet leader. It's happened many times, and I
imagine it will happen again.

------
krrrh
I was curious about why the photo of the carrier shows servicemen standing to
spell out E=mc2 in the photo above the article. It was to commemorate that the
USS Enterprise was the first nuclear powered carrier.

Here is a photo[1] of the same ship in 2011, marking 50 years of nuclear naval
power (from this page[2])

[1]
[http://www.navsource.org/archives/02/0265az.jpg](http://www.navsource.org/archives/02/0265az.jpg)
[2]
[http://www.navsource.org/archives/02/65b.htm](http://www.navsource.org/archives/02/65b.htm)

~~~
wolf550e
It's a famous photo:
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Enterprise_(CVN-65)#/media...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Enterprise_\(CVN-65\)#/media/File:TaskForce_One.jpg)

------
rdl
I am still amazed that the Cold War didn't go full global thermonuclear over
the many regional conflicts, accidents, or mistakes.

~~~
rhizome
It was never going to. It was only a tool to motivate docility, impose
repression, and achieve political gain.

M.A.D. was known on all sides for decades before I was taught about it in the
80s. Nobody who could influence the Big Red Button was at all interested in
relinquishing the power that they would lose in the event of an ICBM war.

------
Jerry2
This is a fascinating & scary bit of history:

> _Indeed, a Soviet naval task force from Vladivostok consisting of a cruiser,
> a destroyer and two attack submarines under the command of Adm. Vladimir
> Kruglyakov intercepted Task Force 74 in the makings of a deadly Cold War
> standoff. Kruglyakov gave a rousing account in a T.V. interview of
> “encircling” the task force, surfacing his submarines in front of the
> Enterprise, opening the missile tubes and “blocking” the American ships._

Also, the eyewitness account (from the OPs link):
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iQchmaC5-q8&feature=youtu.be...](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iQchmaC5-q8&feature=youtu.be&t=112)

------
SpikeGronim
This is the subject of an excellent book on Archer Blood:

[https://www.amazon.com/Blood-Telegram-Gary-J-
Bass/dp/0307744...](https://www.amazon.com/Blood-Telegram-Gary-J-
Bass/dp/0307744620)

------
jessaustin
It seems picayune to have removed the " _In 1971,_ " qualifier from the title.

~~~
angry_octet
+1 for using that lovely word. Though overall I'm happy that the title is not
"You won't believe who the U.S. Navy almost bombed!"

------
saiya-jin
the fact that US for decades openly and covertly supported such an plain evil
regime as Pakistani one (on top of other similar all over the world) tells me
all I need to know about lack of any morality of US foreign efforts.

I'm not buying some fairy tale of lesser of two evils while supporting the
bigger one. they could do better if they wanted, which would incredibly affect
millions and millions of human beings, but they've chosen not to.

~~~
mikeash
There is no morality in international relations. The international stage is
ultimately an anarchy, and it's a dog-eat-dog world. Countries which make
decisions based on morality rather than self-interest lose out to countries
that focus on results.

~~~
Symmetry
This view seems utterly at odds with what I've read of history. The
individuals making the decisions about the actions of states take action for
moral reasons _all the time_. Look at, I don't know, all the wars the UK got
into in the 19th century through trying to stop the slave trade, half the
decision making of the powers getting into World War I, the US's conspicuous
failure to annex the territory it captured in WWII or countless other things.
I certainly wouldn't say that any country is entirely selfless, that doesn't
happen either. And there's a wide range of how different factors affect a
country's balance between the two. But even Nazi Germany and Japan did things
for racist, anti-communist, and (in Japan's case) anti-colonialist things at
times that weren't in the interest of furthering the power of their states.

~~~
mikeash
The US's good treatment of conquered territories following WWII set it up for
the global hegemony it enjoys to this day. The Nazis and Japanese lost the war
in a devastating fashion in part because they behaved so stupidly due to their
ideology. I'm not too familiar with the UK's fight against slavery, but I'd
wager that their enemies were the ones who suffered the most from shutting
down the slave trade.

~~~
pjc50
> I'd wager that their enemies were the ones who suffered the most from
> shutting down the slave trade.

This is .. not a position supported by historical evidence, and in fact it was
the UK which suffered (stopped benefiting from) the slave trade.

------
moon_of_moon
Hell has a special place for Kissinger.

------
fit2rule
Every time these sorts of things come up, we see contemporary Americans
excusing the actions of their state as 'admissible under the circumstances' ..
however, one has to wonder just what form of circumstances would be
appropriate for this to be _happening to the United States_ , i.e. - if a
foreign state had done this to the US, would it be acceptable?

No, of course not - not ever.

So, the point of these stories seems to be to point out the hypocrisy of the
current generation of Americans - who justify American supremacy at the cost
of a great deal of moral altitude. Surely this bubble is going to burst, one
day, and we won't have a generation of Americans who justify the crimes of
their state against others', but rather accept responsibility and actually put
the actors in jail? One can only hope.

~~~
throwanem
I hope it's a very long time before acting to further the interests of the
United States becomes a crime in the United States.

 _Edited to add:_ And I'm really surprised to see several people, I doubt any
of whom would find positive connotations in the phrase "American
exceptionalism", nonetheless arguing by trivial implication that the United
States should unilaterally engage in military operations, within the territory
of a sovereign state then being courted toward alliance, in order to change
the outcome of a secessionist insurrection then taking place within that
state.

~~~
maxxxxx
You hopefully know that a lot of things that are sold as in the interest of
the US are not really in the interest of it but only in the interest of some
politicians or other players.

~~~
throwanem
Only a fool would think otherwise. But I don't see how that's significant
here; opening diplomatic relations with China in the midst of the Cold War was
very much in the interests of the United States.

~~~
rhizome
Participating in the Cold War at all, however, was not.

"Interests" are not self-justifying.

~~~
throwanem
I eagerly await your argument for how unconstrained Soviet imperial expansion
into Western Europe would've advanced US interests.

~~~
fit2rule
It would have further allowed the continued justification of western
imperialism as a 'reaction' ..

~~~
throwanem
...which, if true, would have resulted either in Soviet domination of Europe,
or, when Soviet and American ambitions bluntly collided, a hot war instead of
a cold one. It may be possible to regard either of these outcomes as
preferable to the one which actually occurred, but I have to confess myself
unable to imagine how.

~~~
fit2rule
Actually, this is what happened. Western imperialism ran rampant, we have
human rights violations and heinous, heinous conditions for significant parts
of the world, all because the West wants its way. 6 of one, half a dozen of
the other. The only reason you're arguing is because its your team that is
doing all the damage.

~~~
throwanem
Don't mistake me for being particularly starry-eyed about American imperial
ambitions, or America in general; I'm a nationalist by default, because I'd
rather live in a strong country than a weak one, not because I'm especially in
love with its frankly rather adolescent national mythos.

That said, based on all the historical evidence I've seen, if I had to choose
between living in an American satrapy or a Soviet one, I'd take the former
without a qualm. US history isn't without its stains, but in all things there
are degrees, and to claim there's nothing to choose between the two powers is
arrantly ahistorical.

------
rdtsc
> Archer Blood, the State Department’s consul general in Bengal, sent a cable
> to Washington on March 27. “Here in Decca we are mute and horrified
> witnesses to a reign of terror by the Pak[istani] military,” Blood wrote.
> “Evidence continues to mount that the MLA authorities have list of AWAMI
> League supporters whom they are systematically eliminating by seeking them
> out in their homes and shooting them down.

> He and 20 diplomats later sent a famous protest telegram in which he called
> what was occurring “genocide.” Kissinger responded to Blood’s complaints by
> dismissing him from his post. “The use of power against seeming odds pays
> off,” Kissinger observed regarding the crackdown.

It is important to keep in mind that Henry Kissinger was awarded the Nobel
Peace Prize.

~~~
elgabogringo
Probably because he started diplomatic relations with China, pulled us out of
Vietnam and didn't start or escalate a military conflict.

You want to throw all that out because of a strongly worded letter related to
a territorial dispute that is still going on 40 years later?

~~~
guelo
He was awarded the Nobel for the failed cease-fire negotiation with Vietnam in
1973, that war dragged on for two more bloody years before USA would admit
that it had lost. Meanwhile he was illegally carpet bombing Cambodia, as well
as kidnapping and murdering his way through latin america.

~~~
delazeur
> USA would admit that it had lost

When Nixon announced this to the nation, his newspeak term for it was "peace
with honor in Vietnam."

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jXTiz8F6S5E](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jXTiz8F6S5E)

