Israel loses the 1973 war

Well, these two points are not really correct, at all.

Assad more or less hated Sadat, partly because Sadat was actually competent and partly because Sadat stood between Assad and what he thought would be leadership of the entire Arab World. The only way Sadat could stop Syrian troops from excesses is if he had Egyptian forces attack them directly (good luck on that one, just keeping their conscripts reined in was going to be a full time job for the Egyptians).
Wait, Assad hated Sadat that much? Fair enough. So there would definitely be civilian casualties, war crimes, and such...because Assad had a giant ego and little tact. Fantastic. :(
Nixon reacted when the October War started to turn against Israel and IDF started to, quite obviously, begin prepping their Nuclear Deterrent (which was exactly WHY the Israelis made the preparation so bloody obvious). Israeli use of Special Weapons against Syria, a major Soviet Ally, was one of those nightmare scenarios that tended to escalate to a full exchange in the blink of an eye. A full nuclear exchange qualifies as a bad thing. Nixon also went full Cold Warrior once the Soviets started to talk about intervention, hence his taking SAC to DEFCON Three to remind Moscow just what the stakes were. Nixon didn't support the Israelis due to political calculations (or looking to capture the "Jewish vote") by then his only political calculations related to staying in office and out of the slammer), he supported them because failing to do so could have resulted in Armageddon.
I know that Syria is basically Russia's warm-water port, but I strongly doubt that Moscow would launch the nukes if not directly attacked themselves, precisely because they knew what the stakes were.

I dunno. I know I'm an optimist about human nature to the point of being misguided, but I just can't imagine Israel or the USSR (even Leonid Brezhnev's USSR) stabbing themselves in the heart to soak their enemies with their blood like that.
 

CalBear

Moderator
Donor
Monthly Donor
Sure, but how many other imperialist powers got fanatical revanchism and hate from their colonies' neighbors? That's what being an imperialist power and colonizing people entails. And like I say all the time, I don't see the Romani adopting this mindset, and they have at least as much reason to fear literally everybody around them as Jews in general, much less Israel.

It really does, IMO, boil down to irrational paranoia, especially in a world where UN-backed attempts to stop genocide and ethnic cleansing were rapidly becoming a thing and Jews had the benefit of protected-class status (that, just as an example, the Romani still don't in much of Europe).
How many other colonial power leaders in 1973 had most of their parents and grandparents intentionally executed for the crime of being born? How many of them had members of the political and military leadership that have numbers tattooed on their forearms?

You do not have to agree with the "Never Again" mindset to accept that it exists, or that it existed strongly in 1973 Israel. To this day once a year every Israeli stops and observes a moment of silence on Holocaust Remembrance Day. Traffic stops on the highway, with drivers and passengers getting out of their cars to stand at attention. That is in 2018. In 1973 there were untold thousands of people in Israel that had literally arrived there virtually straight from the Camps. The IDF Chief of Staff emigrated for Yugoslavia a few months before the Nazis overran the country. Haim Bar-Lev didn't get out of Austria until 1939, AFTER the Nazi takeover (he literally had to wear the Yellow Star on his clothes). All of these men had close family who died at the hands of the Nazis. "Never Again" wasn't a catchphrase to them, it was an Oath to dead relatives.

It was, and is, a thing. 2018 political issues belong in Chat, not in this thread. You are really pushing the envelope in several of your posts.
 
I dunno. I know I'm an optimist about human nature to the point of being misguided, but I just can't imagine Israel or the USSR (even Leonid Brezhnev's USSR) stabbing themselves in the heart to soak their enemies with their blood like that.

I think the missing piece here is fanaticism, either religious or nationalistic. Time and time again humanity has shown a willingness to go to the death and beyond for a cause they fanatically believe in. Religion is the most common variant, but ethnic struggles have seen similar fanatic sentiments arise. When you believe a cause is more important than your life it is very easy, easier honestly, to extend that to the lives of many others.
 
How many other colonial power leaders in 1973 had most of their parents and grandparents intentionally executed for the crime of being born? How many of them had members of the political and military leadership that have numbers tattooed on their forearms?

You do not have to agree with the "Never Again" mindset to accept that it exists, or that it existed strongly in 1973 Israel. To this day once a year every Israeli stops and observes a moment of silence on Holocaust Remembrance Day. Traffic stops on the highway, with drivers and passengers getting out of their cars to stand at attention. That is in 2018. In 1973 there were untold thousands of people in Israel that had literally arrived there virtually straight from the Camps. The IDF Chief of Staff emigrated for Yugoslavia a few months before the Nazis overran the country. Haim Bar-Lev didn't get out of Austria until 1939, AFTER the Nazi takeover (he literally had to wear the Yellow Star on his clothes). All of these men had close family who died at the hands of the Nazis. "Never Again" wasn't a catchphrase to them, it was an Oath to dead relatives.
The thing that mystifies me is why Israel had this attitude, but not, say, the Romani, who were also targeted by the same genocide and sent to the same camps.
It was, and is, a thing. 2018 political issues belong in Chat, not in this thread. You are really pushing the envelope in several of your posts.
Fair enough. I'll restrict further comment on the matter to Chat.
 

Lusitania

Donor
As I mentioned the conquest of Sinai and golan Heights could of been achieved and peace treaty imposed. But try to enter Israel proper would of been that line in sand that would of resulted in nuclear option being used.
 

CalBear

Moderator
Donor
Monthly Donor
Wait, Assad hated Sadat that much? Fair enough. So there would definitely be civilian casualties, war crimes, and such...because Assad had a giant ego and little tact. Fantastic. :(

I know that Syria is basically Russia's warm-water port, but I strongly doubt that Moscow would launch the nukes if not directly attacked themselves, precisely because they knew what the stakes were.

I dunno. I know I'm an optimist about human nature to the point of being misguided, but I just can't imagine Israel or the USSR (even Leonid Brezhnev's USSR) stabbing themselves in the heart to soak their enemies with their blood like that.
Assad pretty much loathed anyone who didn't kiss his ass at least one a day (if anything he was worse than his triple damned son). Syrian forces were also close to caricatures of 3rd World troops, extremely poor discipline, poorly led by officers who were pure political appointees (i.e. pretty much the same as the ones committing war crimes in today's Syria). It would have been an orgy of Rape, loot, burn, kill, not by all the troops, but it really doesn't need to be all, or even a large minority, to create a bloodbath.

There is a really uncomfortable fact about nuclear weapons. ANY usage, especially during the height of the Cold War, was virtually assured to lead to tripwire escalation (as I have said here too often in the past, I am unaware of any open source exercises where things DO NOT escalate out of control). As was in 1973 the IDF and Soviets exchanged gunfire (mostly by the Soviets) during several IAF strikes into Syria that came close to Soviet assets.
 

CalBear

Moderator
Donor
Monthly Donor
The thing that mystifies me is why Israel had this attitude, but not, say, the Romani, who were also targeted by the same genocide and sent to the same camps.

Fair enough. I'll restrict further comment on the matter to Chat.
Why the Romani didn't develop the same perspective is a fascinating question, I'm not sure it has ever been researched. May be a Ph.D waiting to happen for someone.
 

Lusitania

Donor
Why the Romani didn't develop the same perspective is a fascinating question, I'm not sure it has ever been researched. May be a Ph.D waiting to happen for someone.


Maybe it had to do with historical homelands. The Jews were expelled from holyland in the first few centuries after Christians came to power. Like the Romani they were unwanted guest in most European countries for centuries.

The idea of homeland for Jews started in the late 19th century with many returning to Palestine to start the process.

The WW2 death camps provided the impetus for America and Europe to facilitate the movement of Jews to Palestine. Was it Americas and Europe guilty consciences or right people who were sympathetic at tight pace at right time? Also I wonder if the Evangelical sympathy towards the Jews in Holy land also contribute to it.

Anyways lots of things to discuss on different thread.
 
Maybe it had to do with historical homelands. The Jews were expelled from holyland in the first few centuries after Christians came to power. Like the Romani they were unwanted guest in most European countries for centuries.

The idea of homeland for Jews started in the late 19th century with many returning to Palestine to start the process.

The WW2 death camps provided the impetus for America and Europe to facilitate the movement of Jews to Palestine. Was it Americas and Europe guilty consciences or right people who were sympathetic at tight pace at right time? Also I wonder if the Evangelical sympathy towards the Jews in Holy land also contribute to it.

Anyways lots of things to discuss on different thread.

I think you can make an argument that the treatment of Jews as unwanted guests is still alive and well in many parts of the world today including in certain parts of the United States but this is probably a topic for chat so no more and my apologies to the moderators if I have crossed any lines with this comment.
 
Assad pretty much loathed anyone who didn't kiss his ass at least one a day (if anything he was worse than his triple damned son). Syrian forces were also close to caricatures of 3rd World troops, extremely poor discipline, poorly led by officers who were pure political appointees (i.e. pretty much the same as the ones committing war crimes in today's Syria). It would have been an orgy of Rape, loot, burn, kill, not by all the troops, but it really doesn't need to be all, or even a large minority, to create a bloodbath.

There is a really uncomfortable fact about nuclear weapons. ANY usage, especially during the height of the Cold War, was virtually assured to lead to tripwire escalation (as I have said here too often in the past, I am unaware of any open source exercises where things DO NOT escalate out of control). As was in 1973 the IDF and Soviets exchanged gunfire (mostly by the Soviets) during several IAF strikes into Syria that came close to Soviet assets.
I knew the Syrian army was terribly led and had a shit NCO corps with poor treatment of enlisted (as the Egyptian army became after Sadat's death, and as most Arab armies are these days for various reasons), but I didn't know they were that bad.

I am...less certain in the accuracy of those exercises, since I believe that the very real threat of death affects people in a way that controlled exercises don't.
Why the Romani didn't develop the same perspective is a fascinating question, I'm not sure it has ever been researched. May be a Ph.D waiting to happen for someone.
You could also say similar things about Native Americans, or the Rohingyas, or ex-Cathars in Europe.

I still think said perspective is not really rational in the current global social climate.
 
Actually you are completely and totally wrong on this. Like utterly wrong in so many ways it's amazing.

It took decades of concerted PR effort to get the West to really give a shit about the holocaust. In the immediate post war world the Holocaust just wasn't really a factor in common conception. America did not heavily support Israel in 1948 in pretty much anyway at all beyond voting in the UN.

No.

America was the first nation to recognize Israel as a state.

Americans rarely agree as overwhelmingly as they did in November 1938. Just two weeks after Nazi Germany coordinated a brutal nationwide attack against Jews within its own borders -- an event known as "Kristallnacht" -- Gallup asked Americans: "Do you approve or disapprove of the Nazi treatment of Jews in Germany?" Nearly everyone who responded -- 94% -- indicated that they disapproved.


https://news.gallup.com/opinion/polling-matters/232949/american-public-opinion-holocaust.aspx

In the aftermath of a cataclysm, people tend to incorporate their experience into familiar conceptual frameworks that reinforce their existing belief systems. What appears in retrospect to have been the repression of memory actually entailed an extensive discourse that played a significant role in the Allied war crimes trials, Cold War anticommunism, historical interest in the Third Reich, postwar philosophical debates, religious reforms intended to improve Jewish-Christian relations, and American Jewry's efforts [End Page 63] to combat antisemitism and win sympathy for Israel. According to Mintz's "constructivist" model of Holocaust remembrance in the United States, the fate of European Jewry has always been perceived "through an American lens and represented through styles of the imagination and modes of cultural production at work in our society."11

Despite their conflicting interpretations about why the Holocaust became more pervasive in American culture after 1961, the authors I have discussed perceive awareness levels to have been low until the State of Israel and American Jewish organizations made the Holocaust central to their agendas, or until liberals and leftists invoked its memory to advance civil or human rights. By making the Eichmann trial, concern over Israel's security, or the heightening of American Jewish identity responsible for the popularization of the Holocaust as a unique or paradigmatic event, Novick and others minimize the less ethnocentric role the Jewish tragedy played in American and American Jewish consciousness between 1945 and 1960.

The Holocaust emerged as an American memory because the United States liberated some of the concentration camps on the Western Front and conducted war crimes trials that documented the Final Solution. The accusation that American immigration policy made the United States an accessory to the crime developed only in the 1960s. 147 Most early Jewish interpretations saw the Holocaust as a result of unchecked bigotry and invoked it to promote civil rights in general. Postwar representations also reflected the pride Americans felt over defeating Germany and the continuing duty to fight communism. The extremity of the Holocaust lent itself to riveting depictions in books, plays, movies, and television programs. Before the tragedy was studied extensively by scholars, incorporated into public education, and commemorated in a national museum, popular culture probably played an even greater role in informing the public than it does today. 148 Nevertheless, some initial postwar perceptions of the event posed a challenge to a complacent faith in progress and required revisions of contemporary philosophical and religious views about God, human nature, and the "other." By the 1960s, the foundations had been laid for a keener understanding and a bleaker portrayal of what the genocide entailed and portended for Jews and gentiles alike.
https://muse.jhu.edu/article/43122

Why would you speak to someone in such a condescending way when you aren't even correct in making such a bold assertion?
 

CalBear

Moderator
Donor
Monthly Donor
I knew the Syrian army was terribly led and had a shit NCO corps with poor treatment of enlisted (as the Egyptian army became after Sadat's death, and as most Arab armies are these days for various reasons), but I didn't know they were that bad.

I am...less certain in the accuracy of those exercises, since I believe that the very real threat of death affects people in a way that controlled exercises don't.

You could also say similar things about Native Americans, or the Rohingyas, or ex-Cathars in Europe.

I still think said perspective is not really rational in the current global social climate.
You keep saying current. This has nothing to do with current.

This is all about 1973, when the leadership was quite literally loaded with men who had survived by pure luck (a Jew emigrating out of Austria in 1939 sort of defines "just in time")
 
You keep saying current. This has nothing to do with current.

This is all about 1973, when the leadership was quite literally loaded with men who had survived by pure luck (a Jew emigrating out of Austria in 1939 sort of defines "just in time")
And who'd then had 25 straight years of US backing. The US that was the first Western nation to formally recognize Jews as citizens (rather than a "problem" to be solved), where antisemitic sentiment had been relatively low even before WW2 (since we were too busy shitting on black people, but still), that could effectively force a truce in any conflict with a couple quick calls from Israel (which...is fairly close to what happened, though Israel managed to shit on their own diplomatic position enough that the Egyptians got the Sinai back anyway), and that has ever since Israel was formed been a reliable source of guns, jets, and other useful toys.

I mean, when you have the biggest guy in the room by an order of magnitude as your friend, why would anyone stoop to suicidal attacks? Just call Nixon, say "These commie Arab scum are about to overrun our freedom-loving people", and the US sails a supercarrier and guided-missile destroyers by the coast and says "Nice Cairo you got there, shame if something happened to it, now how about we all sit down, cease fire, and talk like civilized people, huh?" There, war effectively over, big scary friend in your corner at the negotiating table.

I just genuinely do not understand how anyone can be so wrapped up in fear that they would rather commit suicide than risk a single boot of enemy forces stepping foot on their territory. Wouldn't the Israelis rather do literally anything possible to keep their people alive?
 

CalBear

Moderator
Donor
Monthly Donor
And who'd then had 25 straight years of US backing. The US that was the first Western nation to formally recognize Jews as citizens (rather than a "problem" to be solved), where antisemitic sentiment had been relatively low even before WW2 (since we were too busy shitting on black people, but still), that could effectively force a truce in any conflict with a couple quick calls from Israel (which...is fairly close to what happened, though Israel managed to shit on their own diplomatic position enough that the Egyptians got the Sinai back anyway), and that has ever since Israel was formed been a reliable source of guns, jets, and other useful toys.

I mean, when you have the biggest guy in the room by an order of magnitude as your friend, why would anyone stoop to suicidal attacks? Just call Nixon, say "These commie Arab scum are about to overrun our freedom-loving people", and the US sails a supercarrier and guided-missile destroyers by the coast and says "Nice Cairo you got there, shame if something happened to it, now how about we all sit down, cease fire, and talk like civilized people, huh?" There, war effectively over, big scary friend in your corner at the negotiating table.

I just genuinely do not understand how anyone can be so wrapped up in fear that they would rather commit suicide than risk a single boot of enemy forces stepping foot on their territory. Wouldn't the Israelis rather do literally anything possible to keep their people alive?
Actually the U.S. recognized Israel, and then more or less left them out on their own hook. No arms, no military mission, no lavish air package, nada. Truman recognized Israel, followed by a couple high level resignations in the State Department. While Ike was President the only aid the U.S. sent the Israelis was food. It wasn't until LBJ entered office that the U.S. began to tilt towards the Israelis.

The primary arms supplies and financial backers of Israel in the 1950s into 60s were the French. If you look at the IDF's TOE in 1967 you will find that the IAF is flying almost exclusively French aircraft, the only exception being the ancient H-34, which was on its last legs.There were a number of Sherman tank variants in use, but those were purchased on the open market, including a large number that were literally bought in various European junkyards and rebuilt. The IDF also had some M-48s, as did the Jordanians and the Lebanese. About the only system that was actually U.S. sold was the Hawk SAM system, which the U.S. sold like it was corn dogs at a county fair. Even small arms were a mix of French weapons, Israeli designs like the Uzi, captured AK-47s and whatever could be found for sale. Anti-tank weapons were French and Belgian (except for some 105mm recoilless rifles that were so common that ski resorts had them).

Just as an aside: After the attack on the Liberty, the 6th fleet launched a strike package with the intention of ATTACKING the Israeli bases that facilitates the air and naval attack. Per standing policy the carrier launched its Alert Five strike aircraft. Fortunately, before they got too far from the ship someone figured out that, due to the position of the carrier, the Alert Five package was part of a strategic exercise the USS America was running at the time and the strike aircraft were armed with NUCLEAR WEAPONS. The U.S. came within about 40 minutes of nuking Israel.
 
Just as an aside: After the attack on the Liberty, the 6th fleet launched a strike package with the intention of ATTACKING the Israeli bases that facilitates the air and naval attack. Per standing policy the carrier launched its Alert Five strike aircraft. Fortunately, before they got too far from the ship someone figured out that, due to the position of the carrier, the Alert Five package was part of a strategic exercise the USS America was running at the time and the strike aircraft were armed with NUCLEAR WEAPONS. The U.S. came within about 40 minutes of nuking Israel.

Well, that's a thread right there...
 
Actually the U.S. recognized Israel, and then more or less left them out on their own hook. No arms, no military mission, no lavish air package, nada. Truman recognized Israel, followed by a couple high level resignations in the State Department. While Ike was President the only aid the U.S. sent the Israelis was food. It wasn't until LBJ entered office that the U.S. began to tilt towards the Israelis.

The primary arms supplies and financial backers of Israel in the 1950s into 60s were the French. If you look at the IDF's TOE in 1967 you will find that the IAF is flying almost exclusively French aircraft, the only exception being the ancient H-34, which was on its last legs.There were a number of Sherman tank variants in use, but those were purchased on the open market, including a large number that were literally bought in various European junkyards and rebuilt. The IDF also had some M-48s, as did the Jordanians and the Lebanese. About the only system that was actually U.S. sold was the Hawk SAM system, which the U.S. sold like it was corn dogs at a county fair. Even small arms were a mix of French weapons, Israeli designs like the Uzi, captured AK-47s and whatever could be found for sale. Anti-tank weapons were French and Belgian (except for some 105mm recoilless rifles that were so common that ski resorts had them).

Just as an aside: After the attack on the Liberty, the 6th fleet launched a strike package with the intention of ATTACKING the Israeli bases that facilitates the air and naval attack. Per standing policy the carrier launched its Alert Five strike aircraft. Fortunately, before they got too far from the ship someone figured out that, due to the position of the carrier, the Alert Five package was part of a strategic exercise the USS America was running at the time and the strike aircraft were armed with NUCLEAR WEAPONS. The U.S. came within about 40 minutes of nuking Israel.
(OK, that's a fascinating PoD right there. "Oh shit we accidentally nuked Israel" would be one hell of a Cold War clusterfrakas so soon after Cuba)

Still, the US was very clearly in Israel's camp by the '70s, especially since the Arab militaries were essentially built by the USSR. Despite Israel's tendency to be more dickish on foreign policy than pre-WW1 Serbia and more dickish to its minorities than 19th century America, not to mention the whole "attacked a US-flagged ship in '67" thing, the absolute most that any American government of this time would do to take the Arab side would be to force a ceasefire with the territories outside the 1949 borders being returned to the Arab countries, and even then there's a good chance Israel would get to keep the Golan Heights. I find it unlikely that the Israeli leadership wouldn't be aware that the USA was their friend and wouldn't take advantage of that ASAP.
 
Why the Romani didn't develop the same perspective is a fascinating question, I'm not sure it has ever been researched. May be a Ph.D waiting to happen for someone.
The main reason is that the Romani/Irish Travellers are nomadic, so there likely was no push for a Romani homeland.
 
Top