Annex J - Recovery: Fill & Download for Free

When British India was being given independence ambitions and stubbornness of Nehru played a big part in how things panned out. There were possibilities of India not getting partitioned if certain other formula were used. However, what Jawaharlal Nehru wanted he wanted.Pakistan’s attempt to annex J&K was unexpected yet not so unexpected. Indian intelligence had got a whiff. Yet, Jawaharlal Nehru allowed part of the J&K territory to get captured by the Pakistanis. It was stubbornness on the part of Jawaharlal Nehru, again. Stubbornness plus his brotherly love for Sheikh Abdullah.If there is any one source of problem that played the biggest part in J&K problem it is Jawaharlal Nehru. Here are things Nehru did to turn a relatively simple problem in to a wound India is carrying for seven decades.When Pakistani and Pakistan backed tribal forces attacked Kashmir, and the ruler of the state called India for help Nehru refused to help Maharaja of J&K so that he can help his buddy Sheikh Abdullah gain control of the state.After snatching the Kashmir valley back from the attackers Indian forces needed clearance from government to proceed to take back the remaining territory, but Nehru didn’t grant permission, in stead, as advised by the British he referred the case to the United Nation (which incidentally was a ploy by the British to reinforce the belief they always wanted Indians to live with - that - without the British the Indian Hindus and Muslims will keep fighting each other forever). [1]Even after Pakistan refused to vacate the occupied region as recommended by the UN Nehru didn’t pursue military option. Instead he kept appeasing Abdullah in the process getting played in his hands like a little kid. Abdullah got him to sideline Sardar Patel for handling affairs related to Kashmir, sideline Dr Ambedkar to get a article under the IPC drafted which Dr Ambedkar refused to do declaring that anti-national. [2]Nehru was so enamored with Abdullah that in order to install him as the all-in-all of J&K he sacrificed everything — India’s sovereignty, India’s constitution, Self-respect of armed forces of India. He ruined everything beyond a point of recovery.Pakistan, from the very beginning, started with a hatred towards India, and Jinnah made no secret of it. He immediately started strengthening Pakistan’s armed forces. He asked for arms wherever he went and even joined CENTO, OIC in order to strengthen his position in the world.India on the other hand kept swimming in the dreams of Jawaharlal Nehru who had discovered India by that time. He talked big and created an impression of being a world leader. His participation in Non-Aligned Movement made sure India made no military alliances and Indian forces remained rudimentary compared to Pakistan’s which was on a upward trajectory of modernization with weapons acquired from the west. While numerical superiority of Indian forces remained a decisive factor Pakistan surged ahead otherwise ruling out any possibility of an offensive from India to take back Occupied Kashmir even if there was a political will in India for the same.While India struggled with political indecisiveness vis-a-vis Pakistan and Kashmir, Pakistan kept pushing India hard. Sensing an opportunity after 1962 debacle, Pakistan launched yet another offensive in 1965. If it wasn’t for numerical superiority of Indian forces fortified on the western flank, even that war could have ended with a different result than we know today. However, forget an offensive, India even returned the territory captured during the war, letting Pakistan walk scot-free, without paying a price for the offense.It is this inability of India to make Pakistan pay a price for the aggression that is in the root of all the problems being faced by India from western flank today. Had revolt in East-Pakistan not happened and had the Prime Minister of India not been a decisive and courageous leader like Indira Gandhi who made sure the Pakistan threat is reduced to one-pronged from a then two-pronged, the circumstances would be very different today.1971 broke Pakistan psychologically beyond physically. Yet, Pakistan managed to hatch another another plot and launch an offensive in 1999. India again barely made effort to restore the status-quo rather than punish Pakistan for her aggression.To sum up:It’s been seven long decades. A lot of water has passed under the bridge since the days Kashmir became a bone of contention. All Indian governments of past seven decades are guilty of dealing with Pakistan defensively. Even after the Mumbai attack of 2008, when no one would have stood by Pakistan if India did attack her as all the proof went against them, India chose to stick to merely tough-talk, which have little more than academic value when dealing with a nation of the kind of Pakistan.Other than the defensive military strategy, India also wanted to focus more on economic development than set ambitious targets for military.To a small extent, the past Indian governments headed by Jawaharlal Nehru’s successors also faltered in taking correct decisions due to their Muslim-appeasement policy which helped them stay in power no matter what.Thanks for A2A.Footnotes[1] Mistakes of Jawahar Lal Nehru & History of Kashmir Issue[2] Mistakes of Jawahar Lal Nehru & History of Kashmir Issue

The USSR was the second largest economy in the world 1990.GDP - Million - Flags, Maps, Economy, Geography, Climate, Natural Resources, Current Issues, International Agreements, Population, Social Statistics, Political System. . MAIN INDEX |Ranks Menu| Economy Population Geography Transportation Government Military . Feedback =========== [TOP] GDP - Million 1990 https://theodora.com/wfb/1990/rankings/gdp_million_1.html SOURCE: 1990 CIA WORLD FACTBOOK 1 United States (GNP) $5,233,300.00 2 Soviet Union (GNP) $2,659,500.00 3 Japan (GNP) $1,914,100.00 4 Germany, Federal Republic of $945,700.00 5 France $819,600.00 6 United Kingdom $818,000.00 7 Italy $803,300.00 8 Canada $513,600.00 9 Spain (GNP) $398,700.00 10 Brazil $377,000.00 11 India (GNP) $333,000.00 12 Australia (GNP) $240,800.00 13 Netherlands $205,900.00 14 Korea, South $200,000.00 15 Mexico $187,000.00 16 Poland (GNP) $172,400.00 17 German Democratic Republic (GNP) $159,500.00 18 Belgium $136,000.00 19 Sweden $132,700.00 20 Yugoslavia (GNP) $129,500.00 21 Czechoslovakia (GNP) $123,200.00 22 Taiwan (GNP) $121,400.00 23 Switzerland $119,500.00 24 Austria $103,200.00 25 Iran (GNP) $97,600.00 26 South Africa $83,500.00 27 Indonesia (GNP) $80,000.00 28 Romania (GNP) $79,800.00 29 Norway $75,800.00 30 Turkey $75,000.00 31 Finland $74,400.00 32 Denmark $73,700.00 33 Saudi Arabia $73,000.00 34 Portugal $72,100.00 35 Argentina (GNP) $72,000.00 36 Hungary (GNP) $64,600.00 37 Thailand (GNP) $64,500.00 38 Hong Kong $57,000.00 39 Greece $56,300.00 40 Algeria $54,100.00 41 Venezuela $52,000.00 42 Bulgaria (GNP) $51,200.00 43 Pakistan (GNP) $43,200.00 44 Philippines (GNP) $40,500.00 45 New Zealand $39,100.00 46 Egypt $38,300.00 47 Israel (GNP) $38,000.00 48 Malaysia $37,900.00 49 Colombia $35,400.00 50 Iraq (GNP) $35,000.00 51 Ireland $31,400.00 52 Nigeria (GNP) $30,000.00 53 Korea, North $28,000.00 54 Singapore $27,500.00 55 Chile $25,300.00 56 United Arab Emirates (GNP) $23,300.00 57 Morocco $21,900.00 58 Cuba (GNP) $20,900.00 59 Bangladesh $20,600.00 60 Kuwait $20,500.00 61 Libya (GNP) $20,000.00 62 Peru $18,900.00 63 Syria $18,500.00 64 Puerto Rico (GNP) $18,400.00 65 Vietnam (GNP) $14,200.00 66 Cameroon $12,900.00 67 Burma $11,000.00 68 Guatemala $10,800.00 69 Ivory Coast $10,000.00 70 Ecuador $9,800.00 71 Paraguay $8,900.00 72 Uruguay $8,800.00 73 Tunisia $8,700.00 74 Kenya $8,500.00 74 Sudan $8,500.00 75 Oman $7,800.00 76 Ethiopia $6,600.00 77 Zaire $6,500.00 78 Luxembourg $6,300.00 79 Sri Lanka $6,100.00 80 Tanzania $5,920.00 81 El Salvador $5,500.00 81 Yemen Arab Republic $5,500.00 82 Qatar $5,400.00 83 Jordan (GNP) $5,200.00 83 Ghana (GNP) $5,200.00 84 Dominican Republic $5,100.00 85 Senegal $5,000.00 85 Angola $5,000.00 86 Uganda $4,900.00 87 Costa Rica $4,700.00 88 Zimbabwe $4,600.00 88 Bolivia (GNP) $4,600.00 89 Honduras $4,400.00 90 Cyprus $4,200.00 91 Zambia $4,000.00 91 Iceland $4,000.00 92 Panama $3,900.00 93 Jamaica $3,800.00 93 Albania (GNP) $3,800.00 94 Trinidad and Tobago $3,750.00 95 Bahrain $3,500.00 96 Brunei $3,300.00 97 Papua New Guinea $3,260.00 98 Gabon $3,200.00 99 Afghanistan $3,000.00 100 Nepal $2,900.00 101 Macau $2,700.00 102 Guinea $2,500.00 103 The Bahamas $2,400.00 103 Haiti $2,400.00 103 Nhttps://www.theodora.com/wfb/1990/rankings/gdp_million_1.htmlThen they went down hill.“THE ‘WASHINGTON CONSENSUS’, which for nearly a decade put the best face it could on Russia’s mis-transition, is showing signs of crumbling. It is now acknowledged that the Russian Federation’s post-communist depression was deep and painful, causing immense physical hardship and psychological stress. After reporting unemployment in the low single digits during the first half of the 1990s, it turns out that more than 17 million are seeking work or have left the labour force after years of discouragement…the physical hardships, social disruption and psychological distress associated with a 44% decline in Russia’s GNP caused millions of premature deaths, in addition to any adverse impact they may have had on fertility. The exercise reveals that there were 3.4 million Russian premature deaths in 1990–98 plausibly attributable to the travails of post-communism.”— “Premature Deaths: Russia’s Radical Economic Transition in Soviet Perspective”, Europe-Asia StudiesThis embracement of neoliberal/libertarian economic policies not only destroyed their economy but also led to de-industrialization of Russia’s economy as well as many other post-Soviet countries and the shutting down of factories everywhere.The Deindustrialisation of Contemporary RussiaThe Deindustrialisation of Contemporary Russia Tahir Asghar The USSR, over the period of its tumultuous history, had built up a massive industrial, R&D and scientific potential so as to not only build a socialist society and defend it but also to secure its economic independence and growth and the full development of intellectual and material capacities of its population. Not only did the old industrial and scientific centres like Moscow and Leningrad witness massive expansion but many new such centres were set up in all the republics. Moscow and its surrounding region continued to be the major economic region of the USSR, where the most diverse sectors beginning from aeronautic and cosmonautic, high tech defence industries and research institutions to linen and textiles factories were situated. The process and trends of economic and technological decline of the country in the period of restoration of capitalism find their particular reflection in the decline of these former centres of industrial and scientific excellence and their transformation into service hubs. What has happened there and is continuing to take place can be considered as a typical case of the overall trend of the shift in the emphasis towards the service sector on the rather flimsy ‘scientific’ hypothesis that all advanced economies are characterised by dominance of the service sector, totally contrary to the Marxist-Leninist position of the primacy of the sector of production of means of production as the foundation not only of the national economy but also as a determining condition for the real, not just formal, independence of a nation. In the preceding 25 years, capitalism has expanded to become a truly globalised economic system. And during this period global capitalism has experienced a number of crises in many parts of the world – the South Asian crisis of 1997, the Russian crisis of 1998, the bursting of the tech bubble and finally the crisis of 2007 in the United States of America and then the crisis in the Euro zone. However, in the 1980s capitalism was being prescribed as the only system capable of providing sustained growth not only in the advanced capitalist countries, in the countries of the so-called Third World, but also in the countries of the socialist bloc. It was argued that only a market system based on private entrepreneurship produces optimal use of resources, minimises waste and maximises economic growth. In the late 1970s the West experienced the information revolution. The spread of computer and information technology first to the corporate (manufacturing, small and medium businesses, retail, banking) sector and then to the households for personal use led to a sharp increase in labour productivity. At the same time the USA and UK saw the rise of right-wing political forces to power – Ronald Reagan in the USA and Margaret Thatcher in UK. Using the power of the mass media, prejudices of the middle class and abovehttps://www.revolutionarydemocracy.org/rdv19n2/russia.htmThe only post-Soviet country to not have de-industrialization is Belarus because they never adopted neoliberalism.“Call it the Belarus exception. Almost 28 years since the collapse of the Soviet Union, this deeply cautious nation of 9.5 million — rolled over through the centuries by Moscow’s wars with other parts of Europe — has kept alive many of the industrial jobs and social ecosystems that centrally planned factory budgets once supported across the bloc.”— Bloomberg BusinessweekRussia did not begin to recover until about 2013 when they abandoned neoliberal/libertarian economic policies.“Russia under Boris Yeltsin was economically depressed, militarily enfeebled, and dependent on Western assistance…Virtually all these assets were under government control until privatization of the mid 1990’s…There is wide consensus that the arrests of Yukos major shareholder, Platon Lebedev for fraud in July 2003 and the oil giant’s CEO, Mikhail Khodorkovsky for tax evasion in October 2003 wereseminal events in Putin’s first term as President, marking the beginning of the process of re-nationalizing strategic industries by the Kremlin.”— “A HISTORY OF PRESIDENT PUTIN’S CAMPAIGN TO RE-NATIONALIZE INDUSTRY AND THE IMPLICATIONS FOR RUSSIAN REFORM AND FOREIGN POLICY”, Colonel Richard J. Anderson United States ArmyBut by then it was already too late, the damage had already been done. The country was set back by about 20 years.Putin also performed this economic recovery by re-nationalizing oil and riding the oil boom. He did not bring back all of Russia’s manufacturing. Oil prices began to plummet in 2014, and with it, Russia’s economy went into a recession which they have still not recovered from.What triggered the oil price plunge of 2014-2016 and why it failed to deliver an economic impetus in eight chartsAlso available in: Español Download the January 2018 Global Economic Prospects report. The 2014-16 collapse in oil prices was driven by a growing supply glut, but failed to deliver the boost to global growth that many had expected. In the event, the benefits of substantially lower oil prices were muted by the ...https://blogs.worldbank.org/developmenttalk/what-triggered-oil-price-plunge-2014-2016-and-why-it-failed-deliver-economic-impetus-eight-chartsRussia also annexed Crimea in 2014 which led to many countries imposing economic sanctions on Russia.Annexation of Crimea by the Russian Federation - Wikipedia2014 annexation of Crimea by Russia from Ukraine Crimean Crisis Annexation of Crimea Part of the Ukrainian crisis , the pro-Russian unrest in Ukraine , and the Russo-Ukrainian War Russian President Vladimir Putin signs the treaty of accession with Crimean leaders in Moscow , 18 March 2014. Belligerents Russia Ukraine Commanders and leaders Vladimir Putin Dmitry Medvedev Sergey Shoygu Valery Gerasimov Aleksandr Vitko Oleg Belaventsev Alexey Dyumin Sergey Aksyonov Vladimir Konstantinov Viktor Pshonka Rustam Temirgaliev Alexey Chaly Oleksandr Turchynov Arseniy Yatsenyuk Ihor Tenyukh Mykhailo Kutsyn Serhiy Hayduk Arsen Avakov Valentyn Nalyvaichenko Andriy Parubiy Anatolii Mohyliov Serhiy Kunitsyn Refat Chubarov Mustafa Dzhemilev Units involved Based in Crimea, elements of 510th Naval Inf Bde (Feodosiia) 810th Naval Inf Bde (Simferopol) Deployed to Crimea, elements of [19] Armed forces 36th Mech Coastal Defence Bde (at Perevalne) 1st Naval Inf Bn (Feodosiia) 501st Naval Inf Bn (Kerch) 56th Gds Bn (Sevastopol) 406th Artillery Bde (Simferopol) 37th Comms and Control Rgt (Sevastopol) Interior troops 9th Interior Troops Bde (Simferopol) 42nd Interior Troops Bde (Sevastopol) 47th Interior Troops Bde (Feodosiia) 15th Interior Troops Bn (Yevpatoriia) 18th Mot Police Bn (Haspra) Border guards Special-Purpose Border Guard Bn (Yalta) [20] Strength Protesters Volunteer units [22] [24] 5,000 (Sevastopol) 1,700 (Simferopol) Russian military forces Protesters Ukrainian military forces 5,000–22,000 troops [28] [29] 40,000 reservists, partly mobilised (outside Crimea) [30] Casualties and losses 1 Crimean SDF trooper killed [31] 2 soldiers killed [32] 60–80 soldiers detained [33] 9,268 military servicemen and 7,050 civilian employees defected [34] [35] 2 civilian deaths during the protests , 1 civilian killed by "Crimean self-defense" under the leadership of a former serviceman of the Armed Forces of the Russian Federation [36] [37] [38] [39] [40] [41] The Crimean Peninsula , north of the Black Sea in Eastern Europe, was annexed by the Russian Federation between February and March 2014 and since then has been administered as two Russian federal subjects —the Republic of Crimea and the federal city of Sevastopol . [42] The annexation from Ukraine followed a Russian military intervention in Crimea that took place in the aftermath of the 2014 Ukrainian revolution and was part of wider unrest across southern and eastern Ukraine . [43] [44] On 22–23 February 2014, Russian President Vladimir Putin convened an all-night meeting with security service chiefs to discuss the extrication of the deposed Ukrainian president, Viktor Yanukovych . At the end of the meeting, Putin remarked that "we must start working on returning Crimea to Russia". [4] On 23 February, pro-Russian demonstrations were held in the Crimean city of Sevastopol. On 27 February, masked Russian troops without insignia [7] took over the Supreme Council (parliament) of Crimea [45] [46] and captured strategic sitehttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Annexation_of_Crimea_by_the_Russian_FederationSo, despite Russia “recovering” by nationalizing oil, that recovery has hit a wall and they’ve been stagnant ever since 2014, and stagnation only means they continue to fall further and further behind the US and China.They were an economic power. But now they are not.

This answer is mainly based on the Normandy campaign- June-Sep 1944.I was at Royal Armouries Fort Nelson in Hampshire a couple of years ago, and I witness a chap telling his friends and family that Tiger tanks were mainly destroyed by Naval bombardment and air attack by Typhoon aircraft. I was too polite to correct him, but I believe that cannot be substantiated!From a combat point of view, the biggest threat to Tigers came from other tanks and tank destroyers. I have posted on the capability of British Shermans and Fireflies to deal with Tigers at Did Sherman tanks battle Tiger tanks during WW2?.The most effective method the Allies had to destroy Tigers was by getting them to have to move!This latter point sounds a bit like that scene in Monty Python's "Life of Brian" where the criminal is sentenced to death in the Arena. He runs around, pursued by the well armed gladiator, who, weighed down by his equipment, has a heart attack and drops dead! The criminal then runs around whooping in victory! life of brian gladiator sceneOkay, lets look at some evidence for this. This is mainly based on Allied Operational Research.The results were collected from examination of 36 Tiger wrecks by members of No 2 ORS and No 20 WTSFF [see Ref 1] to find out who these chaps were].The Tigers showed 13 AP penetrations with 8 hits failed to penetrate, based on close survey of five of the vehicles. Ref 3Interestingly, 7 out of 8 kills by AP were made prior to 8 August, and all 26 abandoned and destroyed kills came after 8 August. This is significant, as in the latter part of the period under survey, the warfare became more mobile.How Representative is this Data?Tigers damaged in Normandy up to 12th August [Ref 4] were as follows:Table 2 Knocked out and Damaged Tiger Tanks by ArmyBy 1st Canadian Army 10 KO plus 2 damagedBy 2nd British Army 122 KO plus 52 damagedBy 1st US Army 0 KO with 27 damaged.*The USA “knocked out” was very stringent, requiring a wreck to be captured.So there were 132 Tiger kills, (see Annexes A and B for more information) the analysis is of 36 so 25%- not a big sample, but representative, albeit there is a two week underlap on the data- I don't know how many. Ref 4 gives 25 Tigers knocked out by Commonwealth Shermans up to 12 August. The is some confusion here, because the total number of Tigers killed and damaged, however, exceeds the numbers committed. Tiger and Tiger II are not disaggregated, they are lumped as Panzer VI.Now of course, the data I have presented is both selective and far from exhaustive- see the data at Annex B and make your own judgement.Comments on Commonwealth Forces in NormandyNote, notwithstanding Saving Private Ryan- the Tigers gave the Commonwealth forces a lot more bother than the US forces![I have read many accounts that portray the efforts of the Commonwealth forces in Normandy as being a second rate effort by a tired and risk-averse army using second rate equipment. However, the statistics do not seem to bear this out. The Commonwealth forces in Normandy destroyed more German armour (1200-1300 vehicles)than they lost at the Battle of Kursk. Commonwealth forces lost 1600 tanks, so the exchange rate was about 1.3 to 1 in the German favour. Now considering the Germans were defending, that is none too shabby!]Data from the Italian CampaignThe view that forcing the Germans onto the retreat is the way to deal with the Tiger threat is backed up by experience in the summer 1944 in Italy. A technical team from the New Zealand 2nd Infantry Division set about examining Tiger tanks left behind by the German retreat. They found 12 Tigers, ten of which were showed no evidence of battle damage; they had simply conked out! They came up with this simple maxim to defeat the Tiger "Push him..make him run!" [Ref 5]ConclusionsFrom the data I have provided, combat losses to Tigers were mainly to gunfire from Tanks and Tank Destroyers.However, it seems clear that the best way of destroying Tigers is to get them to move, where their poor reliability means they will break down or else un out of fuel. The recovery teams will not have time to fix them before they are over-run. Of course, this effect is exacerbated by the destruction of rolling stock and fuel supply problems caused by interdiction by Allied aircraft.Annex A Tigers in NormandyIn Normandy the Tigers were from sPz-Abt (heavy tank battalion) 501, 502 (assigned to I & I SS Panzer Corps) and 503 (assigned to 21st Panzer Division). Each heavy tank battalion was of about 45 tanks. SPz-ABt 503 was assigned some Tiger 2s.All these units were mainly deployed against Commonwealth units near Caen. [Ref 6]Annex B. Tigers Losses according to Different AuthorsRef 8. gives 132 Tigers lost in Normandy (agreeing with Ref. 4), and states: about 50 were lost to ground combat, about 18 to bombing, at least 9 to “carpet bombing” rather than fighter bomber attack. You will have seen the Tiger on its side in crater pictures! 51 abandoned, 2 sunk in a river , the reason for the remaining 10 or so Tiger losses was unknown.References1. Copp T Montgomery's Scientists - Operation Research in Norwest Europe (2000)2. ORS report No 17 Analysis of German Tank Casualties in France 6 June-31 August 1944. Tables 1 and 2.3.Ibid Table 5.4.Army Operational Research Group Memorandum C6 A survey of tank warfare from D-Day to 12 August 1944 (1952) Table 1.5. RG 24 14180 (BRAC) Who killed Tiger? New Zealand Army Study for the 8th Army, July 1944(Sourced from Jarymowycz RJ Tank Tactics from Normandy to Lorraine Boulder 2001)6. Wilbeck C I Swinging the Sledgehamemr, Combat Effectiveness of German Heavy Tank Battalions in World War 2.p 957. Zaloga S Armoured Champion (2014) p 251 based on primary German sources8. Restayn J Tiger 1 on the Western Front (1999)