Israel loses the 1973 war

It wasn't until the Israelis very ostentatiously started to assemble their special weapons in a manner that was virtually certain to come to the attention of U.S. intel assets that Nixon jumped in.

The big question, which I'm glad we'll probably never find out, is whether they'd have used them if Nixon (or Agnew/Albert/etc.) was unable to resupply them quickly enough.
 
I believe things could have been bloodier, but I'm not prepared to buy that they would be apocalyptic.

Assuming for the moment that nuclear weapons don't come into play, then the most likely prospect is a stalemate closer to Israeli borders or within those borders.

The Arab armies had finite logistics and mobility, and sooner or later they were going to come to the end of their tether. The further they got into occupied territories or the closer to Israeli territories, the more exponentially resistance would increase. So the likely outcome is some form of armed stabilisation

I suspect that as matters move to a stalemate, the great powers move in, and an uneasy peace or Armistice is arranged.
 
Jordan only owned part of Jerusalem after the 1948 wars. Prior to that Jerusalem (and the entire West Bank) was part of the British Mandate of Palestine. Following the 1948 British withdrawal, Jordan (formerly Trans-Jordan) occupied the West Bank and part of Jerusalem. Basically all of the Jews in the areas occupied by Jordan either fled or were expelled, Synagogues and other Jewish institutions in the occupied parts of Jerusalem were desecrated/repurposed, and access to the Western ("wailing") Wall was forbidden to Jews. Likewise other Jewish holy sites in the West Bank were forbidden to Jews and often repurposed.

IMHO Israel was not going to nuke Jerusalem, nukes would be used on all sorts of targets in the Arab world.
 
The big question, which I'm glad we'll probably never find out, is whether they'd have used them if Nixon (or Agnew/Albert/etc.) was unable to resupply them quickly enough.

I don't see a question here. The Israelis genuinely believed that the best-case scenario for being overrun was mass rape and murder, followed by penniless expulsion, and that Holocaust v2.0 was likely. They were absolutely going to start nuking their enemies rather than face extinction.
 
Jordan only owned part of Jerusalem after the 1948 wars. Prior to that Jerusalem (and the entire West Bank) was part of the British Mandate of Palestine. Following the 1948 British withdrawal, Jordan (formerly Trans-Jordan) occupied the West Bank and part of Jerusalem. Basically all of the Jews in the areas occupied by Jordan either fled or were expelled, Synagogues and other Jewish institutions in the occupied parts of Jerusalem were desecrated/repurposed, and access to the Western ("wailing") Wall was forbidden to Jews. Likewise other Jewish holy sites in the West Bank were forbidden to Jews and often repurposed.

IMHO Israel was not going to nuke Jerusalem, nukes would be used on all sorts of targets in the Arab world.

I remember the Israeli's were pretty pissed off when they found someone had built an toilet attached to the Western wall.
 
One of the points classical and modern military thinkers make is that if you leave your enemy no choice but to fight to the death you will pay a price for that (see Sun Tzu and others). In 1973 Sadat may have only wanted the Sinai back, and Gaza not included, I'm not sure that we know that for a fact. We also don't know what would have happened had the Egyptians had the sort of military success that allowed them to cross in to Israel proper. It is highly doubtful that the Syrians would have stopped at the pre-1967 border, and if the other Arab states were winning would Jordan have sat on the sidelines? In any case for years the Arab leaders had been been, at best, not shouting the "destroy Israel slogan" but really most had, in Arabic to their own folks, had endorsed the idea. Had their forces had the ability to enter in to pre-1967 Israeli territory, it is unlikely that a stop order would have been obeyed, and giving such an order to "victorious" forces might well have resulted in said leader losing their position or life.

By their own rhetoric since before 1948 and certainly afterwards, the Arabs, as a whole, put the Israelis in a position where the perception was losing=death. That on top of the Holocaust and the various actions towards Jews in Arab countries (until essentially all left/expelled with few exceptions) made this perception a very realistic assessment of the situation. This is not to say this assessment was overblown, but it wasn't "paranoid" and based on fantasy. This is why nukes were made by Israel in the first place, as the "ultimate" force multiplier for a state that was always going to be outnumbered in a big way.

The point of this argument is that you can bet your bottom dollar the Israelis would use nukes if push came to shove - no ifs and or buts. If you (the State of Israel) are "alive" you may have to deal with international upset, but it is manageable. If you are "dead", all the international support/sympathy is irrelevant. A nice eulogy does the star of the funeral no good.
 
To those who seem to think that the U.S. was poised from the get-go to bail the Israelis out, consider this. Early on during the Syrian attack in the Golan the IDF had a TOTAL of 3,000 troops and under 200 tanks facing off with FIVE full Syrian Divisions.

The odds against the Israelis weren't really so great because they had established obstacles, a minefield, an antitank ditch and firing platforms. In addition their tanks were superior. Syria's 5th infantry broke through fairly soon but Turkmani had a difficult time and the northern thrust never broke through.


Two days into the war, with the Egyptians still holding initial gains, and the Syrians actually overlooking the Jordan River

The Syrians failed to reach the Jordan river the day after war broke out. By the 8th they had lost their chance as Israeli reinforcements had arrived.
 
The Arab armies had finite logistics and mobility, and sooner or later they were going to come to the end of their tether. The further they got into occupied territories or the closer to Israeli territories, the more exponentially resistance would increase. So the likely outcome is some form of armed stabilisation

The Egyptians had no intention of advancing more than several kilometers or so into Sinai. As Ismail explained, the so called phase II, or advance to the defiles, was just a joke for Syrian consumption. "There was no intention of implementing it, unless unforeseen circumstances developed, such as an Israeli withdrawal." So Egypt, the strongest arab state, didn't even think itself capable of advancing halfway into Sinai, much less approaching the Israeli border.
Basically all the arabs planned to do, and the best they were capable of doing, was just snatch some of their lost territory back (which in Syria's case might've been the whole Golan--still a rather small area) and then holding out against counterattacks from a tactically more more proficient army. Scenarios of arab armies converging on Israel proper and threatening to wipe it out seem so detached from reality...
 
Last edited:
In 1973 Sadat may have only wanted the Sinai back, and Gaza not included, I'm not sure that we know that for a fact.

Lol, given the balance of forces, in the real world, Sadat had no choice but to make that his policy. He had no capability whatsoever to get half of Sinai back by military means, let alone pose a real existential threat to Israel.


We also don't know what would have happened had the Egyptians had the sort of military success that allowed them to cross in to Israel proper.

OK maybe if they were relatively stronger they would get ideas...But this is just so totally academic.
 
Let's say Sadat keeps his troops in check and they manage to keep their foot hold on the east bank of the canal. The syrians having lost their advantage in the Golan are pushed back. If the Egyptians are no longer advancing, a ceasefire may be possible. Territorital changes in the Sinai occur but unlikely to include Sharm al sheik or el Arish. What happens next? Sadat becomes the leader of the Arab world for the moment. Assad is humiliated and may be deposed by his brother. No Egyptian- Israeli peace treaty. The Israeli mindset will harden that they need the territorial depth the Sinai provides. The Egyptian mindset will be 'perhaps one more war and we can finish it'. There will not be the sense of 'the status quo isn't working let's take a risk to change it'. Without Camp David, I don't see the US flipping Egypt from the Soviets despite Sadat's earlier attempt to wean off of Russian advisors. We are more likely to see a greater effort at setting up settlements in Sinai and Golan perhaps reducing movement into the West Bank. the threat of an Israeli nuke may push the US to try and force disarmament ( or not as in OTL). Perhaps formally putting Israel under the American nuclear umbrella in exchange for disarmament will be the sweetener for both Israelis and Egyptians.
 
Egypt may not have had the capability of presenting an existential threat to Israel in '73.

But Syria, due to the shortened distances, CERTAINLY did.

If the Syrians had broken through the lines on the Golan and threatened to rampage into the Galilee, Israel would have gone nuclear. Bet on it.
 
The Egyptian mindset will be 'perhaps one more war and we can finish it'. There will not be the sense of 'the status quo isn't working let's take a risk to change it'. Without Camp David, I don't see the US flipping Egypt from the Soviets despite Sadat's earlier attempt to wean off of Russian advisors. We are more likely to see a greater effort at setting up settlements in Sinai and Golan perhaps reducing movement into the West Bank. the threat of an Israeli nuke may push the US to try and force disarmament ( or not as in OTL). Perhaps formally putting Israel under the American nuclear umbrella in exchange for disarmament will be the sweetener for both Israelis and Egyptians.
Then you're not taking in account the economic reasons Egypt had for the 73 war, which was the direct reopening of the Suez-canal. The Egyptian economy was in trouble, and it was idly hoped that the canal would bring enough foreign valuta for investments to avoid dissasters. Only trouble was that shipping was changing rapidly, and most new built ships were too big for the canal. IOTL the economy and possible US investments were the most important reason to flip. In your scenario this is unchanged.
 
Then you're not taking in account the economic reasons Egypt had for the 73 war
You are right I had not taken that into account. However, i think flush with victory the egyptian people will not be interested in becoming American lackeys. Arab leaders ignore the street at their peril. look at OTL Jordan and israel. the leaders want to maintain the peace and the masses don't. The leaders find themselves walking a very fine line.
 
I don't see a question here. The Israelis genuinely believed that the best-case scenario for being overrun was mass rape and murder, followed by penniless expulsion, and that Holocaust v2.0 was likely. They were absolutely going to start nuking their enemies rather than face extinction.
It's also a good defense deterrence in that it deters its enemies from occupying too much of Israel since their willingness and the probability of them having nuclear weapons means that no arab nation will risk the Samson option
 
OK maybe if they were relatively stronger they would get ideas...But this is just so totally academic.

On paper, the Syrians were definitely strong enough in both combat forces and logistics to smash through the Israelis defenses and blitz into the heart of Israel so it isn't totally academic. The problem was their systemic incompetence meant their strength was horribly misapplied and so the breakthrough didn't materialize. Of course, systemic incompetence is rather a hard thing to fix... god knows we've tried. *nods over at Iraq*
 
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.

My guess is that there's no Romani nation state. What could make for an interesting study would be looking at the different nation states populated and controlled by peoples who faced genocide.
 
My guess is that there's no Romani nation state. What could make for an interesting study would be looking at the different nation states populated and controlled by peoples who faced genocide.

ObWI: as part of decolonization, the Romani are also given a new homeland. In Kashmir. And France sells them a plutonium reactor.
 
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.
Sadly not that I’m defending apartheid vorster lost three relatives in the boer war camps.
 
Top