No kidding? I may stand corrected. Where did you get your info? I'd love to read about it. (Seriously, I'm not being sarcastic. Already I have an idea for a new model...been wanting to add a Chieftain to my collection anyway...)

The Arabs say they won because they did better then last time. Also because the second half of the war is not taught in school. They did achieve Sadat's original goal which can be considered winning. On the other hand the goal was to win enough prestige to make a separate peace, so... As I understand, face counts tremendously among Arabs, and it would be impossible to make them admit they won.

Just noticed that this thread has reactivated. At the risk of renewing the hissing contest between Worcester and me (which would be a shame, because he's a decent fellow and we both allowed ourselves to go off, last time)... "Who won" questions depend on how you define the terms of "winning". Also depends on who is doing the evaluation, because interested parties have a way of trying to use post hoc discussions to rewrite history. If the issue was Egypt getting Sinai back, then Egypt can claim victory, not because they won Sinai in the fighting, but because the fighting led, directly, to political events which culminted in them getting Sinai back from Israel. It's well to recall that wars are rarely fought for the thrill of the fighting. Who "fights better", who kills more enemy, etc.. are not the measure of success. It's entirely possible to win every battle and still lose the war. Vietnam did. The American Revolution went barely better for America, tactically (only two major battles won in the whole war, Saratoga and Yorktown), yet the outcome was an unambiguous win. Of course, victory conditions are not necessarily symmetrical. It's equally possible to consider Israel the winner of the 1973 fight with Egypt, as it achieved not only a crushing battlefield victory - Worcester's protestations notwithstanding, Israel not only completely defeated the invasion force, in detail, and brought a large part of the rest of the Egyptian Army to the point of collapse, west of Suez, but had an open road to Cairo and the ability to exploit it - but, in those subsequent political developments, achieved what had been their grand strategic goal since 1948 with respect to Egypt; i.e. a formal peace overtly acknowledging Israel's right to exist. The idea that both sides can win a war may seem a trifle odd, but political scientists can wrap their minds around it. Syria, otoh, just got waxed. Period.

some people in this thread have mentioned writers who authored useful books on the Yom Kippur War. I found books by Nadev Safran to be informative. "Israel, the Embattled Ally" covers the '73 War. He also wrote an article for the Foreign Affairs journal in the months after the Yom Kippur War. I think he was on the Harvard faculty. He was well enough regarded to be included in the bookstore of Marine Corps Historical Society at Quantico back in 1981. His books covered political, economic and military developments. I am rereading "Embattled Ally" now. I don't remember him recognizing the revolutionary effect of the Israeli stand in the Golan Heights, I guess I'll find out when I read uit again.

To be honest, though Egypt was beaten back by the Israelis. The Egyptians (not the Syrians or the other arab nations) really came out the big winners. Not militarilty but on onther points that are very important (at least to them). 1) Egypt regained it honour from the embarrassing defeats at the hands of the IDf in previous wars. 2) Because of the conlict Egypt was able to settle a cease fire agreement regarding the Suez which was more favorable to them than the past agreement. 3) Sadat had been looking for a way to shift from Soviet depedence to USA aid and through behind the scenes politics, the war gave them just that. 4) Egypt showed its army was no longer witless and cowardice and developed their knowldge in skill in tactics. 5) They traumatised the one time superior Israeli Defence Force and the Jewish state. 6) Egypt did no lost territory from the war (it was returned) and the tone was set for the eventual return of the sinai Penninsula (with its oil resources) ack to Egypt. So though they were defeated in battle, Egypt benefited the most from the war which many argue was their plan all along.

To be honest, though Egypt was beaten back by the Israelis. The Egyptians (not the Syrians or the other arab nations) really came out the big winners. Not militarilty but on onther points that are very important (at least to them). 1) Egypt regained it honour from the embarrassing defeats at the hands of the IDf in previous wars. 2) Because of the conlict Egypt was able to settle a cease fire agreement regarding the Suez which was more favorable to them than the past agreement. 3) Sadat had been looking for a way to shift from Soviet depedence to USA aid and through behind the scenes politics, the war gave them just that. 4) Egypt showed its army was no longer witless and cowardice and developed their knowldge in skill in tactics. 5) They traumatised the one time superior Israeli Defence Force and the Jewish state. 6) Egypt did no lost territory from the war (it was returned) and the tone was set for the eventual return of the sinai Penninsula (with its oil resources) ack to Egypt. So though they were defeated in battle, Egypt benefited the most from the war which many argue was their plan all along. Previous Comment _________________________________________ It could be Egypt. It could also be US. According to Walter Boyne(Two a clock War), US was attempting to juggle both sides to end with the satisfactory conclusion of reducing Russian influence. Being able to "triangulate" between the Arabs and Israel, gave an opening for a partnership with the Arab dynastic states, which helped bleed the Russians in Afghanistan. This is complicated and smells of "conspiracy theory syndrome". I don't say that it was all planned out, rather one thing led to another. The nation that most profited would have to be Egypt who got rid of the Russians. Next would be Israel who got peace with Egypt. And third would be America which got the Russians out of the Mideast-less important to America then Egypt but not unpleaseing. America also got a considerable boost in prestiege at a time when it was well desired. Syria was the loser and it was lucky to survive. All this shows that war is not football and it is not always easy to say who won.

I was the one who proposed that more than one party could be said to win a war. And, that Egypt could claim a victory in 1973. Still, there were some details with which I can not agree. "1) Egypt regained it honour...." The funny thing is that this statement is both absurd and true. It's true. You find Egyptians in that era saying that they felt that their honor had been restored, time and again. It's impossible to seriously doubt that such a feeling did, indeed, exist. It's absurd, however, because what actually happened was the Egyptian military found a way to win one battle because of very peculiar and local circumstances, then found that they were still dogmeat to the Israelis. It's difficult to overstate the extent of the Israeli military victory when they mobilized the IDF and went into the field. They defeated the Egyptian units who crossed Suez as totally as it's possible to defeat an army. Completely. Killed, wounded or captured almost the entire force. They followed this up by crossing Suez with an army of their own, then surrounding another Egyptian army and bringing it to the point of surrender or annihilation. That was the point at which the Soviets threatened to intervene, the US threatened to counter that move, and the armistice was arranged. Arab (Muslims, generally) have some odd ideas about "honor". "Egypt showed its army was no longer witless and cowardice and developed their knowldge in skill in tactics." Nope. I explained this in an earlier note. Egypt used some real ingenuity to arrange to defeat an Israeli force on the East Bank of Suez which numbered barely 1000 men. That's the point which seems most easily lost. Egypt didn't defeat an Israeli army. They defeated a tiny standing force which Israel, because of circumstances, did not try to reinforce. When Egypt was faced with an actual campaign, they lost as thoroughly as they had in '56 and in '67. And, did so even with a true advantange the Soviets had provided them, in a new roboust SAM capability which the Israelis were not prepared for and which thwarted the Israeli Air Force in the first days. I repeat, in about three weeks, Israel defeated two large Egyptian armies, crossed the Suez Canal, and had the road to Cairo wide open to the. The Soviets saved Egypt. Not the Egyptian military. NATO militaries took many lessons out of the '73 War. They spent many years analysing what had happened - as well as quite a bit of new Soviet equipment the Israelis captured and turned over to the US - and developing new tactics and equipment to use in Europe. Israel, which was, indeed, traumatized by the '73 War, took important lessons about several military issues from the war. What the Egyptians learned is a mystery to me.

Arab (Muslims, generally) have some odd ideas about "honor". "Egypt showed its army was no longer witless and cowardice and developed their knowldge in skill in tactics." ______________________________________ It's not so odd-it's like a fist fight: it doesn't feel as bad being beat to a pulp if the opponent has a black eye. Westerners just assume that nations will behave in a more cold-blooded manner then adolescents.

To be honest, though Egypt was beaten back by the Israelis. The Egyptians (not the Syrians or the other arab nations) really came out the big winners. Not militarilty but on onther points that are very important (at least to them). ________________________________________ On the other hand Israel got peace with Egypt-not peace in the modern sense but at least peace in the balance-of-power sense. Egypt was removed from contention, and only Syria remained for the next round(Lebanon). So perhaps it is fair to say that Israel was the biggest winner. However, though the tactical results of the Yom Kippur War were clear, the political ones were ambiguous. I still say that Syria came off worst and indeed it is a wonder it still exists.

My daughter is learning Arabic in the Defense Language Institute. Their class sent some people for a three week immersion experience in Alexandria, and they just returned. An NCO said that he went to an Egyptian history museum, and discovered that the Egyptian army had decisively defeated the Israelis in every war that it engaged them in. Quite some parallel universe they construct for themselves.