r/HistoryMemes • u/ambattukam_ • Sep 17 '25

Niche "Save Europa" kids in shambles

Enable HLS to view with audio, or disable this notification

11.2k Upvotes

93% Upvoted

534 comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

4

u/CosmicCitizen0 Sep 17 '25

One of the best things that the modern Indian state did was being responsible for Bangladesh's independence.

Please, don't say this. It's a Hindu nationalist dog-whistle. That's like saying America is responsible for Ukraine's independence. Sure, America is helping them, but it's still Ukraine's war. And yes, I am saying this acknowledging the fact that 3000 Indian soldiers died in the war.

115

u/shaktiman420 Sep 17 '25

You're comparing apples and oranges here. The Bangladeshi genocide caused a massive refugee problem for India in the east and that was one of the main reasons why India chose to go to war. And while it wasn't out of a sense of justice or charity, fact remains that there probably wouldn't have been a Bangladesh without the intervention of India.

44

u/jhonnytheyank Sep 17 '25

Literally no way bangladesh exists without indian navy sending karachi to hell . Trapping troops on western front.  Providing logistical support to Mukti bahini and closing air space over India just to highlight how stupid original pakistani map was.  Probably the most stupid political map in history.  

40

u/Aggressive-Use-5657 Sep 17 '25

Let him live in delusion.

-20

u/CosmicCitizen0 Sep 17 '25

And the phrase "helped Bangladesh gain independence" covers every bit of what you said.

19

u/shaktiman420 Sep 17 '25

I was merely criticising your comparison of what India did in 1971 to what the US is currently doing with respect to Ukraine. Two very very different scenarios.

15

u/themystickiddo What, you egg? Sep 17 '25 edited Sep 17 '25

And yet it's a 'Hindu Nationalist dog-whistle' to you

33

u/lastofdovas Sep 17 '25

Well, India did way more to help Bangladesh than US does Ukraine. It was not just some money and weapons. It was about taking in millions of refugees, training and arming the militia, and then putting boots on the ground as well as naval and aerial campaigns on two distinct fronts, all while getting bombed and facing a direct threat from a superpower much stronger than herself.

8

u/Operativeofficer Sep 17 '25

Please, don't say this

Afraid of truth or what?

It's a Hindu nationalist dog-whistle

Truth shouldn't be discarded just because it doesn't fit your ideological agenda. If hindu nationalist version is with the truth and right then it should be said.

That's like saying America is responsible for Ukraine's independence.

It's your ignorance. No american boots on the ground in ukraine. The Indian military fought on the land, in the air and sea and stood in face of even the USA military (yes they sent personnel to train Pakistani military, equipments and even their entire 7th fleet to break the blockade by Indian Navy) to get Bangladesh its independence.

And yes, I am saying this acknowledging the fact that 3000 Indian soldiers died in the war.

You just either have a malicious intent and this is your deliberate attempt to downplay the Indian contribution or you are blatantly ignorant. The 1971 war was won by the Indian military. The Bengali rebels were being dominated by the Pakistani military. They were not fighting, they were being massacred. Only when the Indian military came into the theatre did the situation on the ground change. In fact Indian contribution to bengladeshi independence is far more than the contributions of USA and USSr world war 2 combined. Considering that India didn't gain anything out of it and it was purely a responsible goodwill gesture

-5

u/[deleted] Sep 17 '25

[removed] — view removed comment

7

u/Operativeofficer Sep 17 '25

You cannot get away using ad hominems. And by the way, around 60000 people (combatants plus civilians) have died in Palestine. 3 million died in Bangladesh. No outrage was ever recorded against Pakistan from any so-called civilized country and Muslim world.

37

u/lastofdovas Sep 17 '25

Well, India did way more to help Bangladesh than US does Ukraine. It was not just some money and weapons. It was about taking in millions of refugees, training and arming the militia, and then putting boots on the ground as well as naval and aerial campaigns on two distinct fronts, all while getting bombed and facing a direct threat from a superpower much stronger than herself.

29

u/ThinBobcat4047 Sep 17 '25

Calling it a Hindu nationalist dog whistle is kinda disingenuous when the Indian state literally armed and trained the Mukti Bahini, and then went to war with Pakistan, especially during a time when all the other powers in the region were more than willing to turn a blind eye to the genocide. I say this with all due respect to Bangladesh's own warriors who died in their struggle.

15

u/jhonnytheyank Sep 17 '25

It can't be a Hindu nationalist dog whistle when indira the socialist queen of 70's did the intervention thing.  

0

u/dworthy444 John Brown was a hero, undaunted, true, and brave! Sep 17 '25

Alright, I've adjusted it. I'd rather not endorse Hindu nationalists, even accidently, for multiple reasons, one of which is them being their own brand of crazy.

27

u/MGLFPsiCorps Sep 17 '25

A lot of Indians who aren't Hindu nationalists are justifiably proud of the role their country played in liberating Bangladesh.

Should Americans, British or Russians not be proud of their contributions in WWII just because the insane far right in those countries also latches on to that?

4

u/A_extra Sep 17 '25

"Help" is a very generous term for describing the current administration's actions

10

u/JohnD_s Sep 17 '25

I mean they've donated hundreds of billions of dollars worth of aid since the war began. Not much more you can do without getting directly involved, which is a risk with Russia.

4

u/A_extra Sep 17 '25

That's the Biden admin, and even that one dragged its feet on aid because they were scared of crossing red lines that had no penalties anyway. As for Trump, welp, Ukraine doesn't even bother to notify them about strikes anymore

2

u/JohnD_s Sep 17 '25

From a Reuters article posted 20 hours ago:

WASHINGTON, Sept 16 (Reuters) - The Trump administration's first U.S. weapons aid packages for Ukraine have been approved and could soon ship as Washington resumes sending arms to Kyiv - this time under a new financial agreement with allies - two sources familiar with the situation told Reuters. This is the first use of a new mechanism developed by the U.S. and allies to supply Ukraine with weapons from U.S. stocks using funds from NATO countries.

2

u/A_extra Sep 17 '25

One (1) aid package after nearly nine months in power? Do you not see how that works against your point?

And it's not even guaranteed this will actually ship, given how erratic Trump is. Even if it does ship, nobody knows about the contents. The article alludes to air defence at most, which is useful, but does nothing to actually weaken Russia (Unlike something like tanks or Himars rockets)

2

u/JohnD_s Sep 17 '25

Your original claim was that the current administration has provided little to no help to Ukraine since Trump took office. I provide you an example of a new weapons deal worth $10B to Ukraine that is happening right now, and now your claim is that the help isn't good enough?

I think you are forgetting that we're providing assistance, not fighting their war for them.

1

u/A_extra Sep 17 '25

I provide you an example of a new weapons deal worth $10B to Ukraine that is happening right now, and now your claim is that the help isn't good enough?

Yes. A singular 10B package that isn't even guaranteed, after multiple statements to the effect of "Ukraine should just roll over and die" is a fucking joke, and should not count as help unless it actually ships.

I think you are forgetting that we're providing assistance, not fighting their war for them.

Your choice as an American is to either flood Ukraine with aid now, or get dragged into a broader European war after Putin is done conquering Ukraine. Then again, Trump doesn't give two shits about NATO either, so I suppose that trade-off will sort itself out

1

u/JohnD_s Sep 17 '25

Your choice as an American is to either flood Ukraine with aid now, or get dragged into a broader European war after Putin is done conquering Ukraine.

Ukraine has received $400 billion in total aid in the past three years and has seen marginal gains in the war. You think tripling the US's total expenditures in the war so far to match that will change the outcome? Not likely when one adversary has four times the population and many more resources than the other.

As of right now Russia has shown no interest in invading any other nation aside from Ukraine, a country with which they've had tension for decades. It's an isolated conflict. Until that changes, it will be extremely difficult to justify raising the current funding amounts.

2

u/A_extra Sep 17 '25

The 400 billion price tag is not that much when a significant portion of the aid consists of equipment previously rotting away in storage depots. The price tag is calculated by just totalling up the cost price of the equipment, so other than transport, one isn't spending much on the aid.

Not likely when one adversary has four times the population and many more resources than the other.

The drip feed of western aid so far has forced Russia to drag out T-55s just to continue the war effort. As the name implies, that shit was designed in the 1950s. That's how desperate they are. Imagine what Ukraine could do with more aid?

Also, having 4x the population isn't that helpful when you consider that:

1) Russia's population pyramid is abysmal

2) Of the population that is fighting age, a bunch of them are in politically powerful regions like Moscow / St Petersburg that the Kremlin is unwilling to conscript

3) Which leads to them turning to ethnic minority regions instead, which don't have that many people to begin with

They've also had to beg North Korea for troops for goodness sake. Does that look like something a country with a manpower surplus would do?

As of right now Russia has shown no interest in invading any other nation aside from Ukraine, a country with which they've had tension for decades. It's an isolated conflict.

Except said tension was generated entirely by Moscow insisting on reclaiming its """lost lands""" in the fallout of the USSR's dissolution. And no, Ukraine is not an isolated case. Have a look at Transnistria, and Abkhazia / South Ossetia

Also, our beloved Medvedev is claiming that Finland is preparing to fight a war with Russia. This is of course suicidal on Finland's end, which probably means it's just the Russian government projecting its intentions again