No Victor, No Vanquished: The Yom Kippur War

The author is not an Arab - he's British. Having said that, the reason this book gives an Arab perspective of the war is that the author has more connections and sources from the Arab side than most western writers. Given it's slightly Arab bent, it's still an excellent overall volume on the '73 war, although there are a few instances of obvious anti-Israeli bias and some just inaccurate information. These inaccuracies however all treat minor details and do not detract from the overall value of the work, especially as a counter to most literature available in English which is written by Israeli authors. The organization of the book is excellent. It's generally chronilogical which helps give an understanding of the dilemma of both sides with having to balance the strategic situation on both the Golan and Suez fronts by actions that wouldn't make sense just looking at one front in isolation. Mr. O'Ballance also elcted to address the air war and naval war in separate chapters at the back of the book rather than trying to incorporate this data into the sections dealing with the land war. While this approach does result in a somewhat dis-jointed presentation, it's helpful in allowing him to go into detail about the air and sea war without breaking the flow of naration on the land war. The section on the naval war is particularly interesting as its an aspect of the Arab-Israeli wars that is completely ignored by most authors.

Well, whenever I get down about buying books that don't live up to their reputation I can think back on No Victor, No Vanquished and smile. I just couldn't put this one down after I started it, and it far defied all expectations. The narrative is detail rich but flows well and has excellent organization. All its maps and photos make it invaluable. I saw that a reviewer said it was dated and it actually is even though you can't tell from the web page. O'Balance put it out in 1978 and it has been reprinted several times since. What I liked best about it is that it is a meticulous military account that incorporates all the behind the scenes political mischief between Kissinger, the Russians, the Arab block and Europe. You won't be able to think about Moshe Dayan the same way once you finish it. One nugget that made me laugh was that the US, in a move to contain costs, discontinued spy-satellite use in the Middle East which harmed us immeasurably. I always get a kick from those who think our CIA is a nefarious dark empire because this completely contrasts with reality.

Mr. O'Balance did an impressive effort documenting this war. The majority of the books written about this subject are either biased or full of fiction. In his methodology writing this book, Mr. O'Balance follows an objective, yet balanced technique to present an honest and fair historic accounts of this war as we lived it 30 years ago. The fast pace and the in-depth handling of all the subjects contained in this book makes it an excellent reference for any military thinker about how to progress in terms of weapon system technologies, strategic planning, and modern-day warfare.In short, well done Mr. O'Balance!!!!!!!

After some hesitation and mainly perplexed by some reviewer's intentions I didn't by the book. Then, feeling left out from one of the most important events in the world in the 20th century, I decided to check out the book from public library. To my surprise, Mr. O'ballance, as military writer, proved to be the only man with the `right story' as we all lived it hour by hour at that time. After 30 years, nothing he told in the book was proved to be otherwise. Mr. O'ballance has kept it true, honest, and professional yet exciting and fast paced. Had he influenced any event or narration other than just quoting the war's participants themselves, he could have declassified his work as " history", to become may be "fiction". Based on what he set himself to do, from the military stand point, he excelled. But a war any war, isn't simply about military action alone! In fact, a war is always caused by something and is set out to achieve something! . And no matter what! If the cause is not justifiable and the achievement is not been reached, yes there is NO VICTOR and NO VANQUISHED. But that was not the case in 1973, bridging between the first a few pages in the book and the last few ones. Along, with simple analysis of the war at that time, one could easily say that Mr. O'ballance's work is not complete, as it covers only a narrow aspect of the war, the Military action. Adding together the political, economical and international outcome of the war, along with military one. One could see that, on the personal level or national level, there was YES VICTOR, and YES VANQUISHED!.

O'Ballance has it right. Unlike other American and European (not to mention Israeli) accounts on the October '73 War, Edgar was really very neutral and fair. Yes, Israel was in deep trouble from the beginning of the war till its end. While Egypt lost 500 tanks, Israel's loss of 1,000+ tanks sounds very reasonable, especially since the Syrians lost 1300-1500 tanks. Israel's loss of over 200 war planes is also very reasonable, while the Arabs lost nearly 400 aircraft. Neither was victorious nor neither was vanquished was because neither side admitted defeat, so both sides' claim of victory wasn't quite correct, but the fact stays that the Arabs fought the best of this war. I really wish that all Western references regarding this war were as just and logical. ...