Yes, that is the mainstream story about this war, but I just looked up Wikipedia (OK, not a 100% relaible source but still) and it has this:
The US Office of Current Intelligence "...soon concluded that the Israelis – contrary to their claims – had fired first"[5] and it is now known the war started by a surprise Israeli attack against Egypt's air forces that left its ground troops vulnerable to further Israeli air strikes.
So you see maybe what you think is facts might not be, who knows?
The civil war that the United States had in the late 1800's was between the north and the south. The southern states wanted to start another country, but the union army (the army of the north) they were being cantankerous and they would not exit a fort that the southern army controlled. Basicly what the southerners had was a fort that had been taken over by a hostile army....so the southerners fired upon there own fort. History says that the South fired the shots that started the civil war...but I would like to think that for civil people guns are not the first negation tactic. So in my mind gunshots are not always a reliable indication of the start of a conflict! ;)
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
Of course shots aren't the indication of the start of a conflict and in the case of Israel the conflict began because Europeans gave the Jews land that didn't belong to either one of them.
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
After World War 1 ended the 'peace' agreements were not clearly defined and that led up to 1967 when Syria, Jordan, and Egypt all decided to join forces and wipe Israel off of the map. The victory was so overwhelming for Israel that I am told that military stratigests will not try to learn from what Israel did (because divine intervention took place) One story that I remember was something like 1000 battle tanks were going to invade Israel, and the only (natural) defense that Israel had was 1 busted tank. The invaders saw the one tank and they all thought that any, many tanks existed! :)
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
In the 1967 Six-Day War, Israel pitted its roughly 800 tanks against the nearly 2500 tanks of the surrounding Arab nations. While both sides fielded modern designs like the British Centurion, the American M48 Patton, and the Soviet T-55, these were expensive.
The Israelis clearly had the advantage as they didn't have to move their tanks the others had to go into logistic nightmares to place their tanks where they mattered, better said the response you give above is clearly fake news.
"Oren has acknowledged that both US and Israeli intelligence indicated that troop movements in Egypt, taken by themselves, had only defensive, not offensive, purposes."
The truth is captain that Israel is an invading force it has taken land that isn't theirs and then pretends they are the victims, you must understand that Israel as a political entity does not represent the views of all Jewish people, it is as any other country the results of the greed avarice and rottenness of a political class, better said they are no better than anyone else and should not be given special treatments when they are involved in the murders of many innocent people which IS a proven fact, read carefully I am not saying Jews I am talking about Israel as a political entity.
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
I think that it is abit humorous that you quoted a forward that was written for a video game (https://www.flamesofwar.com/hobby.aspx?art_id=4324)
Although I was unable to find the specific example that I was thinking of, I did find a website that arrears to give a reasonably honest account of what was going on in the middle east in 1967 (https://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-39960461)
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
Actually I quoted an article on Wikipedia, I have absolutely no knowledge about Flames of War and hadn't even heard about it before you pointed this out. But even the BBC article agrees with the number of tanks. I have had this debate with my brother a number of times and he says Israel has to attack first because they are the victims, this does sound kind of funny to me. But the BBC article has this:
"They had trained for it for years and the first wave of attacks was about to go in." This is about the Israeli plan to destroy the Egyptian air force nothing hasty about it, it was a well planned attack, not a spur of the moment action.
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
I am not saying that Israel had no training (it would be ignorant of them to not plan on people trying to destroy them) I am just pointing out that the 14 year old military that Israel had was out trained, maned and gunned. In the natural realm Israel should have bee destroyed...it does not make sense to try to take away land from the small country and give it back to the larger aggressor country.
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit