A Very Well Documented Documentary on the conflict.... Probably the toughest War Israel ever fought
A Very Well Documented Documentary on the conflict.... Probably the toughest War Israel ever fought
Last edited by Durran3; 06-01-2009 at 02:04 AM.
I would hardly call the Yom Kippu War to be Egypt's revenge. In spite of having the element of surprise on their side the Egyptians and the Syrians where both beaten back. Israel's situation was one that could readily bring strong nations to their knees. Yet, within days, it had regained its footing and in less than two weeks it was threatening both enemy capitals, an achievement having few historical parallels.
The Egyptian 'Third Army' was totally trapped by the Israelis and saved from inhalation by the Americans. The Syrians where bet back from the 'Golan Heights', which remained under Israeli control. Jordan didn't have the guts to enter the war. So the Arab armies had nothing to show again on the ground, in spite of having all the initial advantage.
I would hardly call such an achievement any revenge my friend.
I think everyone knows that the Israeli's won the 1973 war. I just posted this video because it had some really good information about the war it self. The title is a bit misleading but its not me who made this video or gave it the title.
I think that it was an attempt at revenge...
It will not be correct to call it revenge, but it was a conclusive proof that unlike 1948 and 1967 wars, Egyptians could actually fight.
Israeli recovery was made possible only thru immense help from USA. M-60’s were rolling out of the US cargo planes and going straight to the front. Israel was advertising for retired USAF/National Guard pilots of Jewish origin to fly Sky Hawks and USA made undisclosed number of A-4’s available for this purpose.
Israelis eventually prevailed for three reasons:
1.Every one in the world knew that there was no possibility that US will allow Israel to fall.
2.Quality of Israeli manpower and Officer Corps was superior to the Egyptians and far exceeded those of the Syrians.
3.If Israel falls, they have no where to go but into the sea, thus they were fighting for survival.
Main objective of this war initiated by Egypt was to regain all of the territory lost in 1967, which Sadaat managed to achieve afterwards thru Camp David accord. This would not have been possible if Egyptian forces had not successfully crossed the Suez.
One can never negotiate from a position of weakness.
ISRAEL: The US, USSR and the Yom Kippur War | Stanford | World Association of International Studies
It was apparently during spring 1973 that Egyptian President Sadat determined to redress the balance of power in the Middle East by means of another war with Israel. Following a summer of mending relations with the USSR, receiving massive shipments of Soviet offensive weaponry, and negotiating with Syria and Jordan during September, Sadat launched his attack on 6 October 1973, an important religious holiday for both Jews and *******. …The USSR had actively supported the Arab cause, and on the third day of fighting (9 October) it called upon various Afro-Arab states to fully support Egypt and Syria. Also at that time, the USSR instituted a massive air operation to re-supply Egypt and Syria with military equipment. Soviet naval maneuvers and public statements of Soviet officials helped to develop an impression that the USSR might intervene even more actively.
Yes, I think that our Egyptian friends lost fair and square. It would be unfair to excuse that fact through the presence of American support to Israel. After all we were clearly left hanging by our ‘ally’ in 1965 and still fought the numerically superior enemy to a standstill. The Russians too were deeply supporting the Arabs, not just militarily but diplomatically as well (calling for all Arab states to attack Israel). The Soviets were not only shipping excessive equipment to the Arabs during the wars, they also threatened to intervene militarily on both occasions. As you can see, the Russians were keen to be seen as the ‘friends of the Arabs’, but despite this the Egyptians were in so much trouble that they have no choice but to turn to America in hopes of saving their army and whatever was left of their pride. From then on Egypt went into the American orbit and all the Soviet investment was a waste, because Egypt couldn’t stand up for itself militarily…
Very good videos! most of us know the Arabs didnt win that war wats fair is fair.
Here is another documentary that seems alot more accurate than the first one i posted.
I agree fully with all of 3 points from Mr. Niaz's post above.
Egyptians got there land back and I believe that was their objective.
This is what they proudly mention even today.
Even USSR was surprised on the application of pumps in war.
Israelis were sitting just across the Suez in strong bunkers and Egyptians did pushed them out of Sinai and this is historical fact.
Today, Israel is in peace with Egypt and no more revenges are in foresight.
"USSR's sold huge water pumps to Egypt and probably that referenced to as military equipment!..."
Actually I've heard these were acquired from a British source. The Russians did know about the planned attack before hand BTW, but I'm not sure about the use of the pumps.
"Today, Israel is in peace with Egypt and no more revenges are in foresight..."
Because Arab pride was satisfied even in defeat, which is not speaking very highly of their self-confidence.
I respect differing opinions; essentially this is why it is called a debate. I would however suggest that you are being a bit unfair to the Arabs. I quote below an excerpt from 'Informed Comment' by Juan Cole dated Jan 4, 2009. Mr Cole is contactable at [email protected]. He calls it a draw to slight victory. Don’t think there any dishonour in that. Don't see why an American would not call 1973 war a Egyptian defeat if it were indeed so.
Thoughts on the Middle East, History, and Religion
Juan Cole is President of the Global Americana Institute
Sunday, January 04, 2009
Gaza 2008: Micro-Wars and Macro-Wars
With regard to the Arab-Israeli conflict, we have entered the age of micro-wars.
The first wars that Israel fought with its Arab neighbors were conventional struggles in which infantry, artillery, armor and air forces played central roles.
Israel's enemies had few effective tools in the 1950s and 1960s. Abdel Nasser encouraged Palestinian resistance from Gaza in 1955, but it was more harassment than a serious military operation. The Egyptian, Jordanian and Syrian conventional armies were what Israel's leaders worried about. Jordan was no match for the Israelis and it had a history of secret agreements with the Zionist leaders, so its military was only a threat when, as in 1967, other Arab leaders convinced the Jordanian leadership to join in a collective effort.
Israel's policies were not merely defensive, contrary to the propaganda one constantly hears from New York. Moshe Sharrett's diaries demonstrate conclusively the expansionist character of the regime. Israel's leaders badly wanted the Sinai Peninsula and therefore a commanding position over the trade of the Red Sea and the Suez Canal in the 1950s and 1960s. There was also some petroleum there. Israel used superiority in armor and air power in 1956 to take the Sinai, in conjunction with an orchestrated Anglo-French attack on Egypt's position in the Suez Canal (which Gamal Abdel Nasser had nationalized that summer). President Dwight D. Eisenhower, afraid that vestiges of Old World colonial thinking would push the Arabs into the arms of the Soviets, made Israel relinquish its prize. But hawks in Israel took the Sinai from Egypt again in the 1967 war, in which Israel again demonstrated that armor plus air superiority always defeats armor that lacks air cover (Israel managed to destroy the Egyptian air force early in the war).
Egypt could not accept loss of its sovereign territory. As the largest Arab state, with a third of the Arab population, and a developing economic, technological and military capability, Egypt could not be dismissed. Its leader from 1970, Anwar El Sadat, found a way of striking back. Egypt launched the 1973 war as a surprise attack, and used sophisticated underwater sand-moving equipment to get across the canal and penetrate into the Sinai. By this time Egypt had Soviet SA-6 surface-to-air missiles that served as anti-aircraft batteries and was careful to keep its tanks under their umbrella. Had Egypt had a better air force, Egyptian armor could have rolled right into Israel proper in October of 1973. The Israeli cabinet is said to have feared it was the fall of the Third Kingdom. But even in the absence of a proper air force, the Soviet SAMs were a game-changer. I would argue that they were the difference between the crushing defeat of Egypt in 1967 and the draw-to-slight victory Cairo won in 1973.
The writing was on the wall. Israel could not have the Sinai. Egypt was too big and too increasingly powerful an enemy to continue to provoke it. 1973 settled that. The Egyptian public was tired of war and its expense, and so both sides were willing to conclude the Camp David Peace Treaty of 1978. Egypt got the Sinai back permanently. Israel escaped the most serious military threat in the region. ......
Last edited by niaz; 06-06-2009 at 06:36 PM.
well the arabs lost and since then have not had the guts but to whimper against ISRAELI agression....
the Egyptians had two advantages SURPRISE & SAMs(surface to air missiles) once their army stepped out of the umbrella of the SAMs they could not match the israelis professionalism & training!!
as for the current situation not in the near two decades atleast do the ARABS look threatning to the ISRAELIS...
Israel deserves credit for taking on the combined armies of the arab world and defeating them clealry and not getting into a stalemate!!
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)