History questions not worth their own thread IV

[Michkov]

How did India(subcontinent not the country) fit into the Cold War era? Broad overview would be enough, thanks.

 

[Flying Pig]

Pointedly neutral - all of it

 

[ace99]

India was ostensibly neutral ( one of the founding members of the Non-Aligned Movement), but could be considered to be an ally of the Soviet Union with which it had substantial military and economic ties. Used Soviet weaponry almost exclusively by the 1960's, with some French equipment. Pakistan by contrast was cosier with the US and used American weaponry. How Pakistan became a US ally while India a Soviet one probably has a decent amount to do with geography and historical circumstance. Pakistan was much closer to the Soviet Union physically so was co-opted into the Northern tier the US was building in the Middle East to protect it from Soviet influence. Hence the alliances made with Turkey, Iran, Iraq, and Pakistan. When the various wars broke out the US tended to back Pakistan while the Soviet Union tended to back India.

India also practiced Fabian socialism and had a sizable amount of central economic planning and nationalized industries but that wasn't uncommon for many of the newly independent former colonies. I imagine it was much the same for Pakistan.

I'm not familiar with Sri Lanka, Nepal or Bhutan in the Cold War. I believe India has a protection treaty inherited from the British with the Himalayan kingdoms and was an ally to Sri Lanka when the whole Tamil Elam civil war thing was going down. Helped Bangladesh break away in 1971 which caused a confrontation with the US which strongly supported Pakistan at the time, a US fleet was sent to the Bay of Bengal while the Soviets sent ships of their own in support of India. Never came to much ultimately.

 

[Traitorfish]

edit: buggery, Ace99 got there first, and better.

 

[EnglishEdward]

Good post - Ace.

Mao Tse Tung had the Chinese fight and win a war with India over some worthless glaciers merely to demonstrate that it was China not India that was the non white power in Asia.

The Chinese won, but it humiliated the Indian leadership which caused them to try to switch towards both the USA and the USSR.

This left Pakistan to align with China.

However for India trying to cultivate both the USA and the USSR at the same time was problematic.

 

[Lord Baal]

Good post - Ace.

Mao Tse Tung had the Chinese fight and win a war with India over some worthless glaciers merely to demonstrate that it was China not India that was the non white power in Asia.

The Chinese won, but it humiliated the Indian leadership which caused them to try to switch towards both the USA and the USSR.

This left Pakistan to align with China.

However for India trying to cultivate both the USA and the USSR at the same time was problematic.

Actually, Nehru was establishing bases in disputed territory along the Chinese border. The Chinese appear to have legitimately believed he was planning a move against them - based in no small part on India's invasion of the Portuguese colonies in India shortly prior to this - and decided to pre-empt. This had nothing whatsoever to do with any Chinese pretensions to being a "non white power [sic]" and everything to do with the long-standing Chinese concerns about territorial integrity, combined with Nehru's own poor diplomacy.

Since the Sino-Soviet Rift was an ongoing process during this period, India, wisely, sought support from China's primary enemy, the USSR, which in turn led to China backing India's other rival, Pakistan. Since the US wanted Chinese backing against the USSR in the Cold War, it also backed Pakistan, though it was never on truly unfriendly terms with India.

 

[ace99]

Actually, Nehru was establishing bases in disputed territory along the Chinese border. The Chinese appear to have legitimately believed he was planning a move against them - based in no small part on India's invasion of the Portuguese colonies in India shortly prior to this - and decided to pre-empt. This had nothing whatsoever to do with any Chinese pretensions to being a "non white power [sic]" and everything to do with the long-standing Chinese concerns about territorial integrity, combined with Nehru's own poor diplomacy.

Since the Sino-Soviet Rift was an ongoing process during this period, India, wisely, sought support from China's primary enemy, the USSR, which in turn led to China backing India's other rival, Pakistan. Since the US wanted Chinese backing against the USSR in the Cold War, it also backed Pakistan, though it was never on truly unfriendly terms with India.

I think you ascribe more control over the situation to Nehru than he deserves. He really doesn't seem to have had much of a coherent strategy when it came to China beyond some grandiose ideas of a third power bloc.

The poor showing the Indian army made of itself in the war combined with the surprise Nehru himself felt at the whole affair and his desire to avoid a wider war in Asia (supposedly preventing the Indian air force from launching air strikes on Chinese supply lines, though I think the idea is suspiciously like a stab in the back legend produced by nationalist historians, it's extremely unlikely the Indian air force was capable of somehow severing Chinese supply lines which would require it to fly over the Himalayas while executing precision strikes, the Indian air force at the time still had mostly propeller driven planes, rather than jets and the airbases weren't really there in the region to operate in that capacity.)

I think indicate that establishing forward bases and things like that weren't really part of a grand plan on his part, it's possible the Army may have been acting to a certain extent on its own, it's worth noting that the military leadership was pretty heftily reshuffled and reformed following the war. Both him and Krishna Menon fancied themselves some kind of Metternich's on the international stage, when they were mediocre diplomats at best. Interesting biographies nonetheless.

 

[Yeekim]

Since the Sino-Soviet Rift was an ongoing process during this period, India, wisely, sought support from China's primary enemy, the USSR.

It was hardly a coincidence that Gromyko signed Indo-Soviet Treaty of Friendship and Cooperation in Delhi just weeks after Nixon revealed he'd been invited to China.
The USSR was just as interested in India as an ally as vice versa.

 

[Lord Baal]

I think you ascribe more control over the situation to Nehru than he deserves. He really doesn't seem to have had much of a coherent strategy when it came to China beyond some grandiose ideas of a third power bloc.

The poor showing the Indian army made of itself in the war combined with the surprise Nehru himself felt at the whole affair and his desire to avoid a wider war in Asia (supposedly preventing the Indian air force from launching air strikes on Chinese supply lines, though I think the idea is suspiciously like a stab in the back legend produced by nationalist historians, it's extremely unlikely the Indian air force was capable of somehow severing Chinese supply lines which would require it to fly over the Himalayas while executing precision strikes, the Indian air force at the time still had mostly propeller driven planes, rather than jets and the airbases weren't really there in the region to operate in that capacity.)

I think indicate that establishing forward bases and things like that weren't really part of a grand plan on his part, it's possible the Army may have been acting to a certain extent on its own, it's worth noting that the military leadership was pretty heftily reshuffled and reformed following the war. Both him and Krishna Menon fancied themselves some kind of Metternich's on the international stage, when they were mediocre diplomats at best. Interesting biographies nonetheless.

I agree with all of this. I'm not really ascribing much control over the situation to Nehru at all. He was in charge of India when the bases were established, and he certainly did nothing to curb them, even if he personally did not order their establishment. Of course, once the Chinese - predictably - attacked what they perceived as a threat to their interests, Nehru was forced to take a much more hands-on role.

It was hardly a coincidence that Gromyko signed Indo-Soviet Treaty of Friendship and Cooperation in Delhi just weeks after Nixon revealed he'd been invited to China.
The USSR was just as interested in India as an ally as vice versa.

Of course it was. But it was primarily fear of China that pushed India into the Soviet camp. It's neutralist ideals were effectively killed off for good by the US-China rapprochement.

 

[de Maistre]

My mother is enrolled in an early 20th century history class and is preparing to write her term paper. Because she had expressed interest in the Dreyfus Affair, I suggested that she select the topic "antisemitism in a European country prior to 1939", with France as her subject. Is this a fruitful topic for her to pursue? I'm afraid that the scope is too limiting, the occupational government and the Dreyfus Affair itself being off-limits.

 

[ace99]

"antisemitism in a European country prior to 1939"

I'm afraid that the scope is too limiting

I don't think you need to worry about that. Europe has a rich history of anti-Semitic material.

 

[de Maistre]

I don't think you need to worry about that. Europe has a rich history of anti-Semitic material.

True enough. Also, the question is worded more like "explain the alarming rise of antisemitism in one European country prior to 1939", I kind of feel like that might give her more leeway to look at the Dreyfus Affair itself which was (by and large) the reason in France.. I suppose she'll just have to ask her professor what is acceptable.

 

[Lord Baal]

True enough. Also, the question is worded more like "explain the alarming rise of antisemitism in one European country prior to 1939", I kind of feel like that might give her more leeway to look at the Dreyfus Affair itself which was (by and large) the reason in France.. I suppose she'll just have to ask her professor what is acceptable.

The Dreyfuss Affair was more a symptom of French anti-Semitism than its cause. Many of the proto-Fascists that Mussolini studied were French, as a matter of fact. She may want to dip into that well for information.

 

[ace99]

I'd contest that anti-Semitic was on the rise compared to any previous point in history. Really it was at it's low point, the trend in Europe was toward greater civil rights and freedoms for the Jews. Across Europe the Jews had been emancipated or were in the process of being emancipated.

Russia, Poland, and the Ukraine are a different matter of course.

 

[Lord Baal]

I'd contest that anti-Semitic was on the rise compared to any previous point in history. Really it was at it's low point, the trend in Europe was toward greater civil rights and freedoms for the Jews. Across Europe the Jews had been emancipated or were in the process of being emancipated.

Russia, Poland, and the Ukraine are a different matter of course.

Official anti-Semitism was certainly waning, but anti-Semitic feelings among the general populace - particularly the middle class - seem to have actually been increasing at the time.

 

[ace99]

Official anti-Semitism was certainly waning, but anti-Semitic feelings among the general populace - particularly the middle class - seem to have actually been increasing at the time.

How would you go about measuring that? Lynchings, progroms, and targeted riots didn't tend to happen.

 

[Masada]

How would you go about measuring that? Lynchings, progroms, and targeted riots didn't tend to happen.

Seems like progress to me.

 

[Cheezy the Wiz]

The Dreyfuss Affair was more a symptom of French anti-Semitism than its cause. Many of the proto-Fascists that Mussolini studied were French, as a matter of fact. She may want to dip into that well for information.

Action Francaise's rise is attributed to popular reaction against the defense of Dreyfus. I don't know about Mussolini's attitude toward religion, but I know that AF was vehemently Catholic and had no issue with depriving non-Catholics of rights.

 

[LightSpectra]

Action Francaise's rise is attributed to popular reaction against the defense of Dreyfus. I don't know about Mussolini's attitude toward religion, but I know that AF was vehemently Catholic and had no issue with depriving non-Catholics of rights.

Mussolini was bitterly anti-Catholic and ruminated on the day when he could enter the Vatican and throw the Pope in the river. When Pius XI continued to criticize the Fascist Party after the conquest of Ethiopia, he was recorded to have remarked that the Papacy is "a malignant tumor in the body of Italy and must 'be rooted out once and for all', because there was no room in Rome for both the Pope and [himself]." (Mussolini: A biography, Denis Mack Smith, Borzoi Book published by Alfred A. Knopf, Inc., 1982, pp. 222–223.)

Action Française is just like the Nazis and Fascists in that regard. They publicly deployed Catholic imagery but the main movers of the party were themselves anti-Catholic. They never had significant support from the Catholic Church, though it is a sad mark on its history that the French Catholic episcopacy didn't do more to condemn them.

 

[Ajidica]

Related question: Was there any real separation between anti-Catholic Worshipper and being anti-Catholic Church? Italy was heavily Catholic and it seems odd that bitterly anti-Catholic Mussolini could have garned even a modicum of support if he was constantly bashing Catholics in general.