12 ms·

The U.S. Navy Almost Fought the Soviets Over Bangladesh

127 points by dforrestwilson 10y ago

rdtsc 10y ago
> 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 10y ago
  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?
  - kartD 10y ago
    He's also responsible for numerous foreign policy failures (with genocidal results) as well. He's generally considered a polarizing figure. He doesn't strike me as a deserving candidate
  - saiya-jin 10y ago
    > 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. such a person should be sent for life in hardest prison or executed, not walking around with such an award. I mean, read the article. he laughs about masacres being done. some days, I feel ashamed to be part of the mankind for what we're doing here or there. today is another day like that
  - kafkaesq 10y ago
    Probably because he started diplomatic relations with China, pulled us out of Vietnam The U.S. left Vietnam because it lost the political will to continue in a mission that most of its citizenry began to see as a lost cause (on the heels of various other troubles on the domestic front). Kissinger, Nixon, and everyone else was just following the music, by that point. [And because he] didn't start or escalate a military conflict. Cambodia? 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? That's not what the person above you was saying, of course.
  - deleted 10y ago
    [deleted]
  - buzzcut 10y ago
    It's hard to imagine a description of Kissinger that is more unfounded and, sorry to say, more ill-informed than this one.
  - guelo 10y ago
    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 10y ago
      > 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
  - wavefunction 10y ago
    I downvoted you for making ahistorical claims.
  - finid 10y ago
    > ... and didn't start or escalate a military conflict. So all those killings that took place in South America were not military conflicts.
- saiya-jin 10y ago
  you realize Nobel peace prize is a bad joke and shame stain on other, serious Nobel prices?
  - rdtsc 10y ago
    Yap, that's the gist of my post. It was just highlighting the irony.
  - PhantomGremlin 10y ago
    Yeah, one guy in the recent past actually got one for, basically, "not being George Bush".
OneNoteIsFree 10y ago
Us was on the genocidal pakistan side. Makes you wonder when would we stop rotating mistakes of the past. We're still supporting terrorists in Syria by calling them moderate rebels
jessaustin 10y ago
It seems picayune to have removed the "In 1971, " qualifier from the title.
- angry_octet 10y ago
  +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!"
fit2rule 10y ago
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 10y ago
  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.
  - vkou 10y ago
    Even if they perpetuate genocide? War crimes? Internment and liquidation of troublemakers and undesirables? All of these things have furthered the interests of the nation states that carried them out.
  - maxxxxx 10y ago
    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 10y ago
saiya-jin 10y ago
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.
- 99_00 10y ago
  What would happen if the US didn't support an evil regime? It could collapse and be replaced by something better, or something worse. Or it could just be supported by another super power. But you're right, fairy tales sound nice but aren't true.
  - hx87 10y ago
    If the US had dropped Pakistan in 1971 and teamed up with the USSR to support India and Bangladesh, who would prop up Pakistan? Saudi Arabia? They have money to offer and no much else. China? It's 1971. China is in no shape to get into foreign adventures whatsoever. Even if they tried, the Soviets could always rattle some sabers in the Far East and scare them off.
    - littletimmy 10y ago
      If the US had completely abandoned Pakistan, it would not be able to use it as a proxy base for war against the Soviets in Afghanistan. It would not be able to, in Zbigniew Brzezinski's words, be able to "give the Soviet Union its Vietnam." You should not be moralistic in thinking about international relations, because that is not foreign policy makers think.
      - rhizome 10y ago
        If the US had completely abandoned Pakistan, it would not be able to use it as a proxy base for war against the Soviets in Afghanistan. Right, to use Pakistan as a tool in the Cold War, which was also a stupid and self-serving enterprise.
krrrh 10y ago
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 10y ago
  It's a famous photo: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Enterprise_(CVN-65)#/media/File:TaskForce_One.jpg https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Enterprise_(CVN-65)#/media...
amalag 10y ago
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."
- kartD 10y ago
  Sam Manekshaw (India's Chief of army staff at the time) is quite an interesting person. If anyone's interested, take a look at his wiki page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sam_Manekshaw https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sam_Manekshaw Here are some of his choice quotes: On the military knowledge of politicians: "I wonder whether those of our political masters who have been put in charge of the defence of the country can distinguish a mortar from a motor; a gun from a howitzer; a guerrilla from a gorilla, although a great many resemble the latter." A 'Yes man' is a dangerous man. He is a menace. He will go very far. He can become a minister, a secretary or a Field Marshall but he can never become a leader nor, ever be respected. He will be used by his superiors, disliked by his colleagues and despised by his subordinates. So discard the 'Yes man'.
- chimeracoder 10y ago
  > 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.
Jerry2 10y ago
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&t=112 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iQchmaC5-q8&feature=youtu.be...
whack 10y ago
"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.
- dragonwriter 10y ago
  > It's hard to believe that this is the same Kissinger that's still held in high regard today. It's really not: the people that hold Kissinger in high regard today (and those that did so then) did so specifically because of things like this, not despite them. Note, though, that regard for Kissinger is rather mixed; while some hold him in high regard, some think of him as one of America's leading war criminals.
  - finid 10y ago
    > Note, though, that regard for Kissinger is rather mixed; while some hold him in high regard, some think of him as one of America's leading war criminals. The people who consider him a war criminal can't do anything about it. For those that don't, he's a national hero, and will be buried with full honors when his time comes. Sadly, that says a lot about the moral compass of this country.
bahularora 10y ago
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 10y ago
  > 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.
rdl 10y ago
I am still amazed that the Cold War didn't go full global thermonuclear over the many regional conflicts, accidents, or mistakes.
- rhizome 10y ago
  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.
rdl 10y ago
I am still amazed that the Cold War didn't go full global thermonuclear over the many regional conflicts, accidents, or mistakes.
deleted 10y ago
[deleted]
SpikeGronim 10y ago
This is the subject of an excellent book on Archer Blood: https://www.amazon.com/Blood-Telegram-Gary-J-Bass/dp/0307744620 https://www.amazon.com/Blood-Telegram-Gary-J-Bass/dp/0307744...
moon_of_moon 10y ago
Hell has a special place for Kissinger.

127 points by dforrestwilson 10y ago

rdtsc 10y ago

> 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 10y ago
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?
- kartD 10y ago
  He's also responsible for numerous foreign policy failures (with genocidal results) as well. He's generally considered a polarizing figure. He doesn't strike me as a deserving candidate
- saiya-jin 10y ago
  > 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. such a person should be sent for life in hardest prison or executed, not walking around with such an award. I mean, read the article. he laughs about masacres being done. some days, I feel ashamed to be part of the mankind for what we're doing here or there. today is another day like that
- kafkaesq 10y ago
  Probably because he started diplomatic relations with China, pulled us out of Vietnam The U.S. left Vietnam because it lost the political will to continue in a mission that most of its citizenry began to see as a lost cause (on the heels of various other troubles on the domestic front). Kissinger, Nixon, and everyone else was just following the music, by that point. [And because he] didn't start or escalate a military conflict. Cambodia? 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? That's not what the person above you was saying, of course.
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]
- buzzcut 10y ago
  It's hard to imagine a description of Kissinger that is more unfounded and, sorry to say, more ill-informed than this one.
- guelo 10y ago
  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 10y ago
    > 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
- wavefunction 10y ago
  I downvoted you for making ahistorical claims.
- finid 10y ago
  > ... and didn't start or escalate a military conflict. So all those killings that took place in South America were not military conflicts.
saiya-jin 10y ago
you realize Nobel peace prize is a bad joke and shame stain on other, serious Nobel prices?
- rdtsc 10y ago
  Yap, that's the gist of my post. It was just highlighting the irony.
- PhantomGremlin 10y ago
  Yeah, one guy in the recent past actually got one for, basically, "not being George Bush".

OneNoteIsFree 10y ago

Us was on the genocidal pakistan side. Makes you wonder when would we stop rotating mistakes of the past. We're still supporting terrorists in Syria by calling them moderate rebels

jessaustin 10y ago

It seems picayune to have removed the "In 1971, " qualifier from the title.

angry_octet 10y ago
+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!"

fit2rule 10y ago

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 10y ago
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.
- vkou 10y ago
  Even if they perpetuate genocide? War crimes? Internment and liquidation of troublemakers and undesirables? All of these things have furthered the interests of the nation states that carried them out.
- maxxxxx 10y ago
  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 10y ago

saiya-jin 10y ago

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.

99_00 10y ago
What would happen if the US didn't support an evil regime? It could collapse and be replaced by something better, or something worse. Or it could just be supported by another super power. But you're right, fairy tales sound nice but aren't true.
- hx87 10y ago
  If the US had dropped Pakistan in 1971 and teamed up with the USSR to support India and Bangladesh, who would prop up Pakistan? Saudi Arabia? They have money to offer and no much else. China? It's 1971. China is in no shape to get into foreign adventures whatsoever. Even if they tried, the Soviets could always rattle some sabers in the Far East and scare them off.
  - littletimmy 10y ago
    If the US had completely abandoned Pakistan, it would not be able to use it as a proxy base for war against the Soviets in Afghanistan. It would not be able to, in Zbigniew Brzezinski's words, be able to "give the Soviet Union its Vietnam." You should not be moralistic in thinking about international relations, because that is not foreign policy makers think.
    - rhizome 10y ago
      If the US had completely abandoned Pakistan, it would not be able to use it as a proxy base for war against the Soviets in Afghanistan. Right, to use Pakistan as a tool in the Cold War, which was also a stupid and self-serving enterprise.

krrrh 10y ago

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 10y ago
It's a famous photo: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Enterprise_(CVN-65)#/media/File:TaskForce_One.jpg https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Enterprise_(CVN-65)#/media...

amalag 10y ago

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."

kartD 10y ago
Sam Manekshaw (India's Chief of army staff at the time) is quite an interesting person. If anyone's interested, take a look at his wiki page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sam_Manekshaw https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sam_Manekshaw Here are some of his choice quotes: On the military knowledge of politicians: "I wonder whether those of our political masters who have been put in charge of the defence of the country can distinguish a mortar from a motor; a gun from a howitzer; a guerrilla from a gorilla, although a great many resemble the latter." A 'Yes man' is a dangerous man. He is a menace. He will go very far. He can become a minister, a secretary or a Field Marshall but he can never become a leader nor, ever be respected. He will be used by his superiors, disliked by his colleagues and despised by his subordinates. So discard the 'Yes man'.
chimeracoder 10y ago
> 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.

Jerry2 10y ago

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&t=112 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iQchmaC5-q8&feature=youtu.be...

whack 10y ago

"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.

dragonwriter 10y ago
> It's hard to believe that this is the same Kissinger that's still held in high regard today. It's really not: the people that hold Kissinger in high regard today (and those that did so then) did so specifically because of things like this, not despite them. Note, though, that regard for Kissinger is rather mixed; while some hold him in high regard, some think of him as one of America's leading war criminals.
- finid 10y ago
  > Note, though, that regard for Kissinger is rather mixed; while some hold him in high regard, some think of him as one of America's leading war criminals. The people who consider him a war criminal can't do anything about it. For those that don't, he's a national hero, and will be buried with full honors when his time comes. Sadly, that says a lot about the moral compass of this country.

bahularora 10y ago

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 10y ago
> 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.

rdl 10y ago

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

rhizome 10y ago
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.

rdl 10y ago

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

deleted 10y ago

[deleted]

SpikeGronim 10y ago

This is the subject of an excellent book on Archer Blood: https://www.amazon.com/Blood-Telegram-Gary-J-Bass/dp/0307744620 https://www.amazon.com/Blood-Telegram-Gary-J-Bass/dp/0307744...

moon_of_moon 10y ago

Hell has a special place for Kissinger.