Talk:Operation Linebacker II

Ah Wikipedia!

Just checking in after a long sojourn (11 years or more, and obviously, not long enough). I am the original author of this monstrosity (and the attendant Operation Rolling Thunder and Operation Linebacker One articles). All of the above were originally A class articles when last I saw them, but alas, the times they have been a' changin'. Rolling Thunder is still pretty much hanging in there, but that is to be expected, since it was going to be the most viewed (and edited). The Linebacker Ops - not so much so. That is why they are C class now. Intro was too short, a photo of NVN AAA batteries not attributed (like all of the maps and photos in every article I wrote for Wiki, it came from a US Government publication, where did they think it came from, Mars?). And this brings me to why (after 16 A class and at least 8 B class) I never I never bother write for Wiki any more. The best thing about Wiki is the worst thing about it. You can do the research, argue with other overprotective editors, hump your ass off writing the articles, and finally get the monster done only to find out that some bozo hacked your work into garbage one week later. Or, thanks to new rules and regs, your A class article is now a C class article because some other bozo doesn't know shit from Shinola.-RM Gillespie

Untitled

Also, while the bombing did severe infrastructure damage in Northern Vietnam, it did not break the stalemate in the South, nor did it halt the endless stream of supplies flowing down the Ho Chi Minh trail. "nor did it halt the endless stream of supplies flowing down the Ho Chi Minh trail" This is not appropriate language for an Encyclopedia, nor is it sourced. Specifically "endless stream of supplies...". Literally endless, or... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.23.5.169 (talk) 04:42, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

Old discussion

Why do people think Operation Linebacker II forced North Vietnam to agree to all terms of the Paris Peace Treaty? Is there any proof to this? The US agreed to let the NVA remained in South Vietnam so the DRV was not "forced". The only thing that forces the leaders of Hanoi to agree to the Peace Treaty was the civilian casualties inflicted by American B-52s.

The term "Christmas Day Bombings" is misleading. Operation Linebacker II began on December 18 and ended on December 29, but sorties were only flown on 11 of these days; bombing was halted on Christmas.

29-18 = 11, yet "only" 11 days, and "halted on Christmas." Is this supposed to be funny? -St|eve 00:29, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

Nice math, dude. Now go back and count from 18 to 29, skipping 25, and see how many days you end up with total. I got a hunch it's gonna be 11.

SAC figures actually show only 15 B-52's lost. Call signs for total campaign losses can be found in the offical USAF Archives.

Also the timing of events and condition of the North Vietnamese Air Defence network would indicate Linebacker II forced North Vietnam back to the peace talks. Otherwise they would have been at the full mercy of the USAF. They had little alternative.

I corrected most of the above and organized the rest. The bombings were known as the "Christmas bombings" (for the season), not "Christmas Day bombings". The figure of 15 lost is correct--as indicated above, each loss can be accounted for by their literally colorful call signs (such as "Scarlet 1"), by date and time, and by identification of their crewmembers captured, killed, and missing. While I agree with the opinion about the helplessness of Hanoi at the end of the 11 days, I made reference to "differing opinions" in the reactions section. Buckboard 16:05, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

The article should be renamed

The bombings are much more known as the Christmas bombings, ([[1]] compared with [[2]]). Hardly anyone outside of the US knows the names of American military operations. I propose we move the article to Christmas bombings of Hanoi, or just Christmas bombings. --Merat 10:31, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

• That being the case, why don't you create "Christmas bombings" and redirect from there back to Linebacker II? 74.255.67.108 16:53, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Simply because the article should have the most suitable name, which I don't think "Operation Linebacker II" is. If anyone disagrees with renaming then give me reasonable arguments, please. --Merat 23:10, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

• Perhaps you have noticed that there are articles in two other languages (Italian and Vietnamese) within Wikipedia, both of which are entitled Operation Linebacker II? To avoid confusion I have redirected the page "Christmas Bombings" to this article. RM Gillespie 15:38, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Two wrongs doesn't make it a right, same applies with three wrongs. I ask again, does anyone oppose renaming? --Merat 00:59, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

• Three wrongs? If three articles with the same title by three different authors in three different languages can't convince you of the logic of the title, then I do not believe that anything will. If re-routing through "Christmas Bombings" will not satisfy you, then I'm truly sorry. The name stays. RM Gillespie 05:25, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Other Wikipedia pages doesn't convince me at all, as Wikipedia should not be used as a primary source. What three wikipedian authours have named it isn't important as the Christmas bombings still is the most used name for this event. What they name it in other languages is completely uninteresting, as we should make the naming decision independently. Whether the name should stay or not is not your own decision. This article is not yours. --Merat 01:48, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

• You are absolutely right, I'm just the schlub that is writing it. RM Gillespie 09:15, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

I would propose 1. NOT redirecting "Christmas Bombings" here and let it be a related but separate article, and 2. Adding the normal External links section at the bottom, so as to make it possible to broaden the scope of this American war event to worldwide reactions to it together with articles published in magazines at the time this event was carried out. Johannjs 05:39, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

• Renaming the article from the operation name to a name give later, by the media, would be very confusing. There is an Operation Linebacker I - the official operation name. There is an Operation Linebacker II - the official operation name. To rename Operation Linebacker II to "Christmas Bombings" would do nothing for quality, do nothing for someone trying to research the bombings in Vietnam, but it WOULD add to further disambiguation. What other bombings happened on Christmas day? It's a slippery slope - don't even start on it would be my vote. - NDCompuGeek 19:13, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Xmas bombings

General military histories may use generic titles like "the Christmas bombing" to describe military actions, but specific histories utilize the names of operations to identify the campaigns. This website aspires to be more specific, not generalist, and "Linebacker II" is appropriate as an article name, delineating it from, say, Linebacker I or Rolling Thunder. "Christmas bombings" could apply to actions of a wide variety of natures, anywhere in the world - it could be terrorist activities, or Irish Republican Army incidents, or...? By titling articles with their exact names, we strive for specificity here, not the coffee-table book cutline generalist approach. Writing these articles is not about YOU - we're writing for the general edification of the readers, and accuracy is key.

Mark Sublette 15:56, 21 December 2006 (UTC)Mark SubletteMark Sublette 15:56, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

This may come as a suprise for you, but there is no "exact name". If you think the exact name for war events, such as this, is what the American military gives them then you have a grave American POV. Look at the 2003 invasion of Iraq article. There is a reason why it's not named "Operation Iraqi Freedom". And please refrain from dragging me personally into this. --Merat 02:06, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

• The correct name of that operation was Cobra II. Battle of Waterloo? Normandy Campaign? Operation Bagration? I guess none of those titles are "correct" in your (and I stress "your") estimation? RM Gillespie 08:42, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm afraid you are totally missing my point. Just because the US military decided to invade Iraq doesn't mean that their name for the war is the "correct" name. Do you disagree with that? I think that the "correct", or in better words, most suitable name for an article about an event should be the most commonly used name, in this case "Christmas bombings". --Merat 13:24, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Christmas Bombings - - - Ho Ho Ho Chi Minh!! Mark Sublette 09:30, 4 February 2007 (UTC)Mark SubletteMark Sublette 09:30, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

• Well, lets look at the flip side of the coin. The other nation directly involved in the operation (the Socialist Republic of Vietnam), do they refer to it as the "Christmas Bombing"? Since the vast majority of the population is Bhuddist, probably not. So where exactly is the majority of which you speak? The number of hits on web site? RM Gillespie 15:16, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Outside of the US military I think it's the most commonly used name for the bombings. Web hits is rather even. [3], [4]. --Merat 23:50, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

It looks like a combat article

I don't think it's suitable to make this look like some sort of battle. --Merat 23:39, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

• I believe that it would be rather difficult to have a military campaign without a battle. What prompts your objection? RM Gillespie 18:19, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

With little combat and a large part of the casualties being civilians, I just find it unappetizing with battle infoboxes. I feel that it is a try to make the bombings seem more legitime. Compare with the articles on the bombings of Guernica[[5]] and Dresden[[6]]. I would find battle infoboxes very malplaced and quite insensitive there as well. --Merat 21:43, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

• Once again I stress the word campaign. This was an attack carried out over a period of time against multiple _targets, all military in nature. I'm not sure what else you would define as a battle. Linebacker was offensive and defensive in nature, just as the attacks on Schweinfurt or Ploesti were. They were not indiscriminate terror bombings designed to kill civilians. RM Gillespie 02:15, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

The Dresden bombings were carried out over a few days too, though I don't see why that would matter... "All military in nature"? Railroads and harbours (and at least one hospital). You may or may not find them "legitimate _targets", but calling them military _targets is downright wrong. I don't think the Dresden bombings were "terror bombings designed to kill civilians" either, but they were carried out with little respect of human life, like this one. --Merat 00:56, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

• You obviously have some kind of difficulty grasping the nature of aerial bombardment as it has been practiced from the Second World War through the present. Have you not read the article? All of the _targets were military in nature. Railroads and harbours have been (and continue to be) legitimate military _targets. Ships and railroads transported about 95% of North Vietnam's military equipment and materiel during the Vietnam Conflict. Why wouldn't they be _targets? Yes, the Bach Mai hospital took collateral damage during the campaign, but compare the care with which the U.S. went to avoid civilian casualties during LB II to the indiscriminate carpet bombing of European and Japanese cities during WWII. You do realize that if the bombers had simply dumped their bombs on Hanoi and Haiphong indiscriminately, both cities would have looked like Tokyo at the end of WWII? 1,700 casualties from a bombing raid in that war would not have even rated a paragraph in a newspaper. Such is the nature of war. Or haven't you been paying attention lately? RM Gillespie 05:21, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

First, please refrain from personal attacks if you are able to. I repeat, there is a diffrence between military _targets (a military unit, for example) and legitimate _targets (railroads, for example). I also repeat my standpoint that a a battlebox is not appropriate for a mass killing (from my POV) of 1600+ civilians, whether deliberate or not. --Merat 02:41, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

• Woah! I believe that would be an anti-American POV, wouldn't it? I thought so. Since you do not agree with the use of boxes, why not take up the matter with the Military History Project, which basically demands that one be present? Or maybe the Guernica and Dresden articles need battle boxes too. I'll have to look into that. They were, after all, parts of the wider Second World War. I wonder why they do not have them already? RM Gillespie 08:44, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm as much anti-American as I'm anti-Mongolian or anti-Haitian, thank you. Ok, I'll do that. --Merat 13:49, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Boy, howdy! I am just amazed at the "military" _target versus "legitimate" _target comment. In whose estimation? If the military selects a _target, what are your criteria for defining it as "legitimate" or "military". This is an argument about semantics - not strategy.

And by the way, with family who fought on the side of the late Confederacy, I call it the Battle of Sharpsburg, while others prefer the Battle of Antietam. But the victors always get to write the history...Mark Sublette 09:23, 24 December 2006 (UTC)Mark SubletteMark Sublette 09:23, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

• I would have thought the answer to your query would have been rather simple. In aerial warfare doctrine, (at least in the past) any system, industry, group, or individual that supported a military effort by one nation against another became a legitimate military _target. This definition, of course, became superfluous when discussing the ultimate in strategic warfare, an exchange of nuclear weapons, when entire cities or populations became _targets. The definition of "legitimate" has been redefined and constrained during the post-Cold War period. As for the "victors" writing the history, in this case I would consider the U.S. the loser. RM Gillespie 15:20, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Casualties

This site [[7]] claims that 1,318 people were killed in Hanoi and 306 in Haiphong. I'll use these numbers instead. --Merat 23:34, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Decision

"These claims, however, bear little resemblance to the truth, since both sides had proclaimed their willingness to continue. The goal of President Nixon was not to convince Hanoi, but to convince Saigon. President Thieu had to be convinced that "whatever the formal wording of the cease-fire agreement, he could count on Nixon to come to the defense of South Vietnam if the DRV broke the cease-fire."[22]"

The preponderance of historical opinion, Ambrose aside, agrees that the North Vietnamese had no intention of coming to an agreement before Congress convened. In light of this, surely this statement is a bit strong? I will update this section, making use of Pierre Asselin's work, which makes great use of Vietnamese sources to analyze Hanoi's negotiating stance. Cripipper 20:42, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Result

I edited the summary box, removing "although, it forced North Vietnam to negotiate a peace treaty". I believe some American editors on Wikipedia should stop being so one-sided and stop turning everything into an American "victory". If memory serves me right it was the United States that wanted to go to the negotiating table following the Tet Offensive of 1968. And North Vietnam was not "forced" as the terms of the Paris Treaty was not entirely Amercan, as noted above, many North Vietnamese troops were allowed to stay in parts of South Vietnam under the terms of the treaty. Canpark 04:02, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

gentlemen, a side topic: please remember that is was not "America" which was involved in vietnam, but the USA. although it is propably a global custom to mix these 2 entities, it is unfair to either of them. unfair to the canadian, mexican, cuban, brasilian ..., and to the US as well. Sinzov 20:51, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

A pedant writes. Unfortunately, in the English language 'American' is the standard adjective applied to the United States of America, and is universally understood as such. When prefixed with 'North' or 'South' it is then understood to refer to an entity larger than the United States. Cripipper 00:39, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

thx for your kind words. as we both said, it is a gobal custom ... but where does it come from ? just think about sentences like "H. Chavez is feeding anti-americam sentiments" (Chavez has indian ancestors, so he is indeed american), think about germans occupying "european" for themselves, think about the usurpation of terms as an important part of manipulation, think about another universally known, very specific and unique adjective applied to the USA, "yankee", which you probably will not accept as being appropriate - think about it, and you will get the point.Sinzov 17:05, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

• Oh yeah, I get the point. Semantics, ain't it great? Words as power, history as fiction, post-modernism - I love it. All nonsense of course. All political and social power grows out of the barrel of a gun or out of a wallet, not out of a pen. RM Gillespie 05:46, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Sinzov is correct and in fact, at one time this was emphasized in public schools IN THE US. But since the quality of education in the United States has declined so badly, a lot of ignorant people don't seem to know or understand that the United States is a country, while America is two continents. 116.231.75.71 (talk) 12:05, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

why ? objectives of the christmas bombing

why did the usa bomb an already devasted 3rd world country at the very moment the usa tried to get out of the war ? the answers given are not really satisfying. to convince Thieu ? he and his government were by all means a puppet regime. to bomb north vietnam to the tables ? the peace accord was more or less the same in january 1973 as it was in nov. 1972. the north vietnamese have a different point of view, and it deserves to be mentioned in the article as well. they speak of an "arial dien bien phu". they think that the usa tried to bomb them into submission and that they won this last battle against the usa. many historians think that one of the most important objectives of the bombing was to inflict as much damage as possible in order to deny the fruits of the victory to the vietnamese by making a recovery a very long and painful process, thus "warning" other insurgent people not to wage an uprising. simple deterrence against national liberation ideas. a theory which at least should be considered. Sinzov 20:42, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

• An already devastated country? Perhaps you should find out more about how the U.S. bombing campaigns actually worked. Nguyen Van Thieu a puppet? That's like calling Ngo Dinh Diem an American puppet. Quite popular at the time, but you see what it got him. Deny the fruits of victory to the DRV? The U.S. government had no idea at the time that the RVN government would not survive on its own post an American withdrawal. Your theory on "warning" the "insurgent peoples of the world" of possible U.S. wrath sounds rather old school and I sincerely doubt that you could find a single non-communist source to back it. RM Gillespie 05:41, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

• A devastated 3rd world country that could launch hundreds of SAMs at US bombers on every sortie? Doesn't sound so devastated to me. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.204.253.227 (talk) 09:45, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Rolling Thunder, while a flawed program, was not the sterile -- and strictly legal -- campaign you think it is.

"The journey showed that five cities had been leveled. 
These, traveling south, were the cities of Phu Ly, Ninh 
Binh, Thanh Hoa, Vinh and Ha Tinh, each formerly with 
populations between 10,000 and 30,000. The North's third 
largest city, Nam Dinh -- population 90,000 -- was largely 
destroyed but at least recognizable. Another eighteen 
destroyed centers were classified as towns -- but though the 
place names checked on the map, it was now impossible to 
know what these collections of overgrown debris had once 
been like." 

Maclear's _The Ten Thousand Day War_ , describing a tour of NVN in 1969.

• In comparison to what? The flattening of every major city a la Germany, Japan, and North Korea (with which Rolling Thunder was always compared)? 74.177.113.228 (talk) 15:58, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

• Described by whom and under what circumstances? This came from Harrison Salisbury didn't it? You should find out more about the man and his trip before you quote it. I sincerely doubt that the information is correct for cities with the populations of the size you describe (more than half of whose populations would have been evacuated to the countryside in 1965 in any case) due to restrictions on bombing in any urban areas. You must remember, however, that Ninh Binh, Thanh Hoa, Vinh, and Ha Tinh were major transportation hubs (road and rail). Once again, I suggest you find out more about the highly restricted bombing campaigns.RM Gillespie (talk) 13:07, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

More about the Conclusion

Using "only 1,624 civilians" in the final line of Conclusion seems not appropriate. With predictable bombing timetable and a short period of 11 days, that's quite a high amount. Then it's not like a bombing within a residential area required many deaths to be one. This's not an attempt to debate about "how evil US imperialists are" since we all knows it's against US's policy to kill civilians. It's more about: whether US's government was in a position where only absolute (or near-absolute) accurate bombing are allowed. Undergoldstar (talk) 11:28, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

"Although Hanoi claimed that the U.S. had "carpet-bombed hospitals, schools, and residential areas, committing barbarous crimes against our people", the North Vietnamese government itself claimed that only 1,624 civilians had been killed by the bombing.[73]" - I do not quite see the "although". As pointed out above by Uawe:Undergoldstar, the two statements are not in contradiction with each other. We must also see whether there are critical studies on the figure of 1,624 civilians; it may be a low count issued during the war to prop up civilian morale. Feketekave (talk) 15:28, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

This article is a good poster child for what is so wrong with just about every Vietnam War related Wikipedia article. The US sorties like crazy with some of the most destructive weapons platforms and the result is less than 2000 civilian casualties. Despite that, the article is finished off with tirades of quotes making this out to be just a couple notches short of the Holocaust without a smidgen of discussion how this might be off the mark. Before anyone welcomes me to edit the article, forget it. I've done it in the past only to have comments stripped out within hours if not minutes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.164.142.207 (talk) 01:30, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

You could identify which specific sections, paragraphs or phrases you feel are NPOV. (Hohum ^@)

Naval Surface Warfare During Linebacker II

There was much done simultaneously by Task Force 77 Surface Warfare ships to interdict supply lines along Highway One in North Vietnam. My ship, the USS Lawrence, per her Deck Logs....

USS Lawrence DDG-4 reported as an element of TU 77.1.1 on 21 December 1972, [in effect relieving the Goldsborough who was hit by shore batteries the night before].

During this period through 30 December, Lawrence was flagship for COMDESRON 11. Eighteen (18) 

Linebacker strikes were conducted, expending 1,089 rounds against primary _targets and 296 rounds of counter-battery fire against enemy coastal defense gun sites. During this period enemy fire was heavy and accurate.

Lawrence was under enemy fire for a total of 123 minutes with 388 rounds 

of enemy fire falling in the immediate vicinity with some air bursts and surface bursts as close as 10 yards.

As many as 35 other ships participated in similar strikes.

The Secretary of the Navy takes pleasure in presenting the Meritorious Unit Commendation to USS LAWRENCE (DDG-4) CITATION: For meritorious service during operations against enemy forces in Southeast Asia from 7 August 1972 to 10 January 1973. Upon assignment to the US SEVENTH Fleet in support of United States objectives in Southeast Asia, USS LAWRENCE consistently displayed a high degree of professionalism and resourcefulness while carrying out arduous combat support missions along the coast of the Republic of Vietnam and 116 high speed strike missions against North Vietnam. During this period, USS LAWRENCE damaged or destroyed significant enemy fortifications and logistic support facilities. The sustained high level of personnel and material readiness achieved by LAWRENCE enabled her to respond instantly to every commitment ranging from pilot rescue to emergency naval gunfire support. By the exemplary performance of duty throughout this period, the officers and men of the USS LAWRENCE reflected great credit upon themselves and the United States Naval Service.

John W. Warner Secretary of the Navy —Preceding unsigned comment added by PDT71 (talk • contribs) 21:17, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Pictures of down B-52 from Operation Linebacker 2

One of the planes sits in Huu Tiep Lake in Ha Noi, Vietnam. Pictures are available because the B-52 bomber still sits there today in the middle of the lake. Perhaps a small article on this would be nice. Lukeduk1980 (talk) 22:07, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Conclusions.

I agree that this sentence defies the neutral point of view policy: "Although Hanoi claimed that the U.S. had "carpet-bombed hospitals, schools, and residential areas, committing barbarous crimes against our people", the North Vietnamese government itself claimed that only 1,624 civilians had been killed by the bombing."

I suggest we remove the word "only", replace the "Hanoi" with "Noth Vietnamese" and split this sentence into two separate ones like this:

1) The North Vietnamese criticized the operation stating that the U.S. had "carpet-bombed hospitals, schools, and residential areas, committing barbarous crimes against our people". 2) The North Vietnamese government claimed that 1,624 civilians had been killed by the bombing.

This way we retain all the information contained in this paragraph, but avoid making any political judgement, thus keping in line with the neutral viewpoint policy. We quote the north vietnamese statement, while at the same time making it clear that this is precisely just that - a North Vietnamese account of said events. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wilhelm Klave (talk • contribs) 14:11, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Planes lost to AAA's

In the paragraph it was said that 3 planes were lost to AAA fire but in the table none seem to be listed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.236.66.250 (talk) 06:39, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Christmas Bombing

I know this is rehashing, but the title of this article should be renamed to a commonly recognizable title (WP:Title). Linebacker II is far too obscure. Hardly anybody outside of the US military would recognize this title - and I own a few Vietnam military histories that don't use it. A quick search on Google books yields some 560 with Operation Linebacker II, practically 100% of them highly specialized military books (and the bulk of them narrowly air force-related). Whereas a search for "Christmas Bombings" yields sevenfold times as much. I don't have problems with Rolling Thunder, etc. - those names are well-known. But Linebacker II is far too obscure, and the Christmas bombings far too well known. Walrasiad (talk) 08:07, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

• Disagree - I cannot speak for the rest of the world of course, however I am from Australia and the current title is familiar to me at least so I don't believe it is perculiar to the United States. The article redirects from "Christmas bombings" anyway. AFAIK there has been more than a few bombings on Christmas Day so "Operation Linebacker II" seems more precise in my opinion. Anotherclown (talk) 10:48, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Well, my comment is directed more about familiarity of people outside the military, i.e. general audience. I am in the United States, and a quick (highly unscientific) survey of a handful of acquaintances confirmed that nobody had ever heard of this, although they all heard of the Christmas bombings. Another quick check, looking up Henry Kissinger's own memoirs "Ending the War", it is refererred to repeatedly only as the Christmas bombings, never Linebacker II. It's simply the name by which this event is commonly known, both here and abroad. - Walrasiad (talk) 05:33, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

20 SAMs

The text says "Although an 20 SAMs" - should that read "Although an estimated 20 SAMs" ? I can't make the edit myself as I don't know the original intent. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.159.112.119 (talk) 08:31, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

12 days of Christmas

Nixon could implement the "12 days of Christmas" bombing campaign because (1) he had handily been re-elected; (2) the draft had ended so student protests were rare (young men protested because they didn't want to die, not because there was a war); (3) the new Congress had not convened yet; and (4) it was Christmas break so college campuses were empty and could not mount student protests. The 36 hour break over Xmas day provided the Air Force much needed time to do maintenance on the airplanes, which were very high maintenance since they were high performance aircraft (an F-105 engine had to be gone over every 125 flying hours, for instance). My squadron, the 561st TFS flying F-105G Wild Weasels, participated in Linebacker I and II; we initially sent over 12 aircraft when Giap invaded the South with 200,000 troops, we killed 40,000 of them and four of our F-105G's got shot down, one of them was the last F-105 shot down in Vietnam. We won the Vietnam War, we brought the North to its knees in just a dozen days; however we knew the South couldn't make it without our help because they were so corrupt; we also knew the North would not keep its end of the bargain because Communists lie as a matter of standard policy. Our mission had been accomplished, however, we kept Communism from spreading out over all of Southeast Asia, we stood our ground and let Red China and the USSR know that the USA would stand up to Communism. That was the real war--between the USA, Russia and China; Vietnam was just a proxy war. The Vietnamese were just the poor dumb suckers that got caught in the middle. 2602:306:CEDF:1580:BC32:3559:365:9917 (talk) 08:46, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

Missing or incorrect information

Bombing resumed Jan 2, the January bombing was condemned by 40 nations at the UN and even the Parliament of Canada, American interests were attacked in Europe during this time, and it finally stopped on Jan 15, 1973 when Nixon said progress was being made in the Peace talks. Where is this mentioned?! Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 19:05, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

Missing citations

G'day all, as part of a quick review of old Milhist A-class articles, I have noticed that this article currently doesn't meet the project's referencing requirements for its A-class articles. As such, I have marked these in the places where I think they are needed. I also think that the tables of US aircraft losses and the order of battle need references. Is anyone able to add references in these places? If not, I intend to nominate the article for an A-class re-appraisal. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 08:06, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

I have listed the article for A-class re-appraisal now: Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Operation Linebacker II. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 05:25, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

Very US-centric

There is scant mention of what was destroyed, how many people and who were killed, how Vietnamese (and other neighbouring nations) are affected, etc. There are fancy tables about the lost aircraft, and none about the patients, medics, people in the street, soldiers, who were killed by them.

The whole article implicit lauds the US military by being very unbalanced.

Zezen (talk) 05:23, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

Editwar

Okay, so i cut out the following sentences out of the article: "In the end, the Operation Linebacker II missions allowed the United States Air Force to fully unleash it's power. Where prior operations against North Vietnam, such as "Operation Rolling Thunder" during the Johnson presidency, had been discontinued, the results in 11 days of the Operation Linebacker II bombing missions were different. Less than one month later, all sides signed off on the Paris Peace Accords and formally ended the war." This was mostly on the bases that this is a rather strong statement for which i would like a source, since this is also implying that the only reason for previous failures of bombing campaigns were simply US-political concerns. This is an..."interesting" perspective for sure, if one considers the ammount of bombs the US dropped during their engagments in Vietnam. Its not like the US wasn´t bombing North Vietnam quite heavely already. So yeah. I want a source for the claim that this operation was not only someway different then before (it was not like this was the first massive bombardment of north-vietnamese infrastructure), but also the reason why the peace-treaty was signed. Maybe, just maybe the accords were signed, because the North had already won?

If you make such a statement, i want a source for that.

And if the argument for keeping in this random, off hand comment is: "they US "lost" the war because they trusted Communists to keep their word, but that irrelevant", then iam not seeing the logic here. I´ll keep this mentioned part out of this article until someone gives me some logical arguments to keep it. --Aradir (talk) 22:58, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

I'm not going to dignify your obvious stupidity with a reasonable response. - BilCat (talk) 23:27, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

Am i talking to a six-year old here? Arguments? Facts? Anywhere? --Aradir (talk) 14:15, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

P.s.: To clarify for others reading this exchange: Iam perfectly willing to keep this part. I only want some sources for it, especially since it is an offhand argument thrown pretty randomly in the "Results" part of the article, that is seems not connected to the rest of the information there at all. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aradir (talk • contribs) 14:21, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

There are enough sourced statements in the article already that support that conclusion. But you have already made up your mind that the text is wrong, as you comments in your removal illustrate. I sincerely doubt you will accept any source that claims otherwise, hence "obvious stupidity", although I admit it's a poor choice of words. I'm certainly not going to waste my time giving arguments and facts that will be rejected out of hand because they don't fit your preconceived notions. - BilCat (talk)

No, they are not. Like definetly not. I read the article and afterwards removed severall off-hand sentences (by the way: All the stuff written there is already in the article, only there with sources and not with conclusions pulled from thin air (such as claiming that this mission was a succes because of non-interference from the goverment (that is a pretty bold statement!)). And since we are apparently doing this on a kindergartenlevel here, iam just going to revert this again. Until you use the minutes spent on replying with insults regarded at my direction into simply giving some real arguments and/or facts.

And if iam this "pro-vietcong"-troll or whatever you see in me, then why in the world have i only removed those few sentences, when the whole articles is basically a reread of american mission protocolls? The truth is i removed those sentences because they stood out, not only because of their content, but mostly because of the style, that definetly did not fits in with the rest of the article which very much tries to be objectivly. Unlike the removed sentences. (And iam already feeling i have put more thought and effort into this answer, then you in the entire conversation...)--Aradir (talk) 23:52, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

Nothing you have said has convinced me that you have an open mind on the subject. And if you keep removing the sentence, you'll suffer the consequences. - BilCat (talk) 00:00, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

Let me be clear on this: the sentence does need a specific reliable source, which is why I haven't removed the citation needed tag. But based on my understanding of the war, I believe a source can be found for the claim, but I'd have to do some research to find it. But I believe it can be found, and leaving the sentence raises the chance of someone else adding a source in the meantime. If I thought it was an extraordinary claim that needed immediate sourcing to remain, I would've remove it myself already, as I have done for other extraordinary claims in the article. - BilCat (talk) 00:19, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

I support deletion. My understanding is that what was agreed after Linebacker II was essentially what was on the table before it began.Mztourist (talk) 10:33, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

Firebee drone used for BDA for OPERATION LINEBACK II

Hello,Dear Bumbubookworm, a while back I added some missing information to the page regarding the firebee UAV usage. It was removed by you saying it was Hearsay. Sir, this is not hearsay. My grandfather, LT COL Harold "Red" Smith was in charge of that operation, Deputy Chief of the RPV sector at SAC. The information I posted is from his book that we are working to get published. How can I properly cite this information so it is added to this page? Many people do not know about UAV use during Vietnam, UAV sorties were flown EVERYDAY during the Vietnam war. Here was my original edit that I tried to add to the article, it is important that this is added as hardly anybody knows of the importance that UAV's played in this war.

"BDA (Bomb Damage Assessment) was only performed by the LIGHTNING BUG drone reconnaissance program. LIGHTNING BUG provided daily photo reconnaissance throughout the 11 year campaign. Highlights included the "Model 147E" capture of the SA-2 control frequencies dropping USAF/ US NAVY losses from 7% to 2% of sorties flown saving significant numbers of aircrafts and crews from death and/or capture! ALSO- LIGHTNING BUG was the only system capable of taking BDA photos during LINEBACKER II to assure _target data for the B-52's!"

Please advise so we can rectify this matter. Thank you! Marshall Smith Aviation Unmanned Vehicle Museum (AUVM Dallas, TX www.auvm.net — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mts6789 (talk • contribs) 22:15, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

Mts6789 Wikipedia requires that everything is reliably sourced, please read WP:RS. The claimed recollections of your grandfather are not WP:RS and the sensationalist writing style with lots of exclamation marks is not in accordance with WP:MOS. The combat history of the Ryan Model 147 is already extensively detailed on that page including its BDA role in Linebacker II, so only a minor mention with the link is justified on this page and I have added that in. Mztourist (talk) 05:07, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

Error at the very beginning of the article

Hello to all. I am surprised to read in the very first sentence : Operation Linebacker II was an aerial bombing campaign conducted by U.S. Seventh Air Force and U.S. Navy Task Force 77... Operation Linebacker II was in fact conducted by the Eighth Air Force, which was at that time a component of Strategic Air Command (SAC). The Seventh Air Force and the Seventh Fleet both played a very important, but supporting role during the B-52s night missions. This point is important since 8th Air Force (and SAC) were independant from the rest of the US chain of command for Vietnam (CINCPAC, MACVN etc.). Also some authors (Michel for example) have emphasized the problems with the centralized - out of theater - leadership exercised by SAC, especially during for the first days of the operation.

The table: United States Air Force – Seventh Air Force in the paragraph: U.S. air order of battle is also wrong and should be corrected.

I can modify the article but since English is not my mother tongue, I feel another editor would make a better job of it.

Regards, Domenjod Domenjod (talk) 08:16, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

Even though 8th Air Force units may have been involved, it was a 7th Air Force operation. You are also overstating the role of the B-52s and understating the roles of 7th AF (F-4s and F-111s) and TF-77 (F-4s, A-6 and A-7s) aircraft, so no change is required. Mztourist (talk) 10:28, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

I must admit I didn't expect such an answer. 8th Air Force units MAY have been involved? Are you kidding ? Have you read ANY book on Linebacker II? If you had, or had read the operational orders sent by the JCS to CINCSAC and CINCPAC, the reports on the missions assigned to 7Th AF and 7th fleet and on the bomb tonnage delivered, you would understand who did what, who played the main role and who played a supporting role. In fact, what you wrote probably applies to Linebacker (I) when the B-52s played an important role but 7th AF and 7th Fleet played the main role as far as the air war was concerned. During Linebacker II, tactical A/C laid chaff, provided escort or MIGCAP, performed Wild Weasel and/or Iron Hand missions and attacked the MiG bases while other AC (EB-66s, Navy EA-6Bs and EKA-3s and Marine EA-6As) supported the operation. Everyone flew in support of the B-52 raids. Period. I have read no less than five books on Linebacker II, from the (almost) official : Linebacker II, a view from the Rock to the more critic books written by Marshall Michel and, while they don't agree on everything, they all describe the story I summed-up above. May I suggest that you to read at least one or two of these books before continuing this discussion ?--Domenjod (talk) 20:05, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

I have written the majority of the WP pages on the Vietnam War, so yes, I have read extensively about Operation Linebacker II and do not appreciate your insulting tone. Linebacker II, a view from the Rock is written by the 8th Air Force history unit, so obviously they will claim that they did everything. However if you look at To Hanoi and Back The United States Air Force and North Vietnam 1966–1973 https://media.defense.gov/2010/Oct/01/2001329749/-1/-1/0/AFD-101001-049.pdf it is more nuanced and doesn't even mention Eighth Air Force, simply referring to SAC. You clearly think this is a big issue, whereas I don't, so you're welcome to try to gain consensus in support of your proposed change, but I oppose it. Mztourist (talk) 03:13, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

In addition, Michel on p 57 of The 11 Days of Christmas states that (at least in the first phase of the campaign) "The most important part of these missions, the part into and out of Hanoi, would not be planned in the combat theater but at SAC Headquarters in Omaha." This was a SAC show in terms of planning, at least until the second phase. 8th AF may have had technical control of the bombers, but they weren't calling the shots. He later goes on in pages 130-131 to note 8th AF's issues with SAC's delays in generating missions for the bombers. Anyone who knows anything about Air Force culture, especially during this period, would never question SAC's control over the planning process. It was how they did business. Intothatdarkness 15:36, 22 August 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for the reference you sent me (To Hanoï and back). It's very good and...confirms what I wrote. I haven't finished reading it yet but, as I wonder if YOU have read it at all, let me quote a few parts of it for your benefit:

1. on page 269/430 : quote : The two hundred B–52s based in Thailand and Guam dropped about fifteen thousand tons of bombs in Route Package Six, and fighters added more than two thousand tons.unquote. In my book, this means that Eighth Air Force/Strategic Air Command B-52s dropped about 88% of the total bomb tonnage delivered during Linebacker II. That's almost 9 tons out of ten...
2. You mention that it (quote) ...is more nuanced and doesn't even mention Eight Air Force.(unquote)...Well, it does mention SAC very often (and rightfully so because of the centralized control it exercised) but it does mention Eighth Air Force. A quick research in the chapter B-52s at last shows TEN occurences of the words (you have to look for eighth and not simply eight), including the sentence (page 284/430) : The staff work went on around the clock there as well as in other headquarters acting in response to orders from Omaha: Eighth Air Force on Guam, Seventh Air Force at Saigon, and Task Force 77 in the Gulf of Tonkin.
3. You mention that the 8th Air Force history unit "will claim that they did everything". Well, I see what you mean - and quoted Michel who is very critical of SAC's centralized management of the operation - but I nonetheless disagree with the wording. Obviously, they did a lot but they never claimed to have done everything. And I fully disagree with you when you write that : (quote) it was a 7th Air Force operation. You are also overstating the role of the B-52s and understating the roles of 7th AF (F-4s and F-111s) and TF-77 (F-4s, A-6 and A-7s) aircraft, so no change is required.(unquote).

Shall I continue? Well, you can argue about wording and say that I should have mentioned SAC rather than Eighth Air Force (which was a component of SAC and, like SAC, was in a different chain of command from CINCPAC/PACAF) but this is embarassing...As you and I are both dedicated WP contributors, I think we cannot let this article mention - as it still does - that : Operation Linebacker II was an aerial bombing campaign conducted by U.S. Seventh Air Force and U.S. Navy Task Force 77...without mentionning even once SAC and 8th Air Force. Remember: they dropped almost 90% of the bomb tonnage in this one...not to mention their human losses... To be fair, I also need to correct the sentence I wrote above about the role of 7th AF and 7th FLT during Linebacker II since they both made a significant contribution independantly of the B-52s DURING DAY TIME, besides supporting them during their night missions. I have added the correction in bold letters so that there is no doubt that it is not part of my original contribution.

Again I don't appreciate your insulting tone and as a result will not continue to engage with you. I have added SAC in the first line, if that isn't enough to satisfy your obsession then you will need to try to convince other Users of your position to establish a consensus. If you've read about this as extensively as you claim, why don't you do something useful like find and add missing citations? Mztourist (talk) 06:10, 6 August 2022 (UTC)

Well let's look at the facts :

1. 7th AF and 7th FLT were obviously key players but, as far as Linebacker II is concerned, the major player was 8th AF, a component of SAC. They were independant from 7th AF and they dropped almost 90 % of the total bomb tonnage in the campaign.
2. Yet, the article starts with a sentence that mentions only 7th AF and 7th FLT as the actors conducting the campaign without even a single mention of SAC or Eighth Air Force.
3. While the name SAC appears 17 times in later parts of the article, Eighth Air Force is mentionned only once and is even described as... a component of 7th AF in the table describing the US air order of battle !
4. The points above are confirmed by every decent reference on the Vietnam Air War - including the one you provided.
5. Do I understand correctly that, in spite of all the above, you oppose any change because... you feel insulted ? Well, I am afraid the readers of this article don't care at all about your feelings - or mine. Those who don't know the subject will not be informed correctly and those who do will think this article was written by people who don't know the subject.

Please note I am not talking here of issues where a debate can exist, such as, for example: Should the US have bombed Hanoï earlier ? etc. etc. I am talking of simple facts that are available to anyone doing a minimum amount of research on the topic. So, in the end, I suggest you take some time - and maybe think of your credibility - before answering with hard facts, not feelings. I look forward to implementing the improvements that the article deserves. --Domenjod (talk) 09:40, 6 August 2022 (UTC)

WP:NPA. Mztourist (talk) 12:23, 6 August 2022 (UTC)

Hello Mztourist Thanks for the remainder. Don't forget these recommendations apply to you as well. Since you wrote : "do not manipulate the discussion to suit what you want!", I looked at the article's history log and saw that two hours after writing : "You will need to try to convince other Users of your position to establish a consensus, I remain opposed to the change" you apparently changed your mind, erased this last sentence and - without consulting anyone - replaced it with a contrary statement ie : "I have added SAC in the first line, if that isn't enough to satisfy your obsession". You then edited the text again and added - about 20 mn later : "If you've read about this as extensively as you claim, why don't you do something useful like find and add missing citations?". When I got the WP messages mentioning your edits, I didn't realize initially that you had edited - and replaced - earlier comments in the same paragraph. As you had replaced a sentence, it was difficult to notice the change without going into the history log of the paragraph, which I finally did.

Now my comments :

1. Everyone - including you of course - has the right to change their mind. Even if that means writing - and doing - the exact contrary of what they just wrote a few hours before. This can be confusing to other readers, especially if you remove earlier statements and replace them by contrary statments without warning. You'll notice that when I edited a previous comment in this thread, I informed everyone not only that I had done it but also that I had written the changed text in bold characters so that anyone could notice.
2. After complaining about my "insulting tone", you write : "it that isn't enough to satisfy your obsession...(...)" and then : "If you've read about it as extensively as you claim, why don't you do something useful like find and add missing citations?". I take note that for you, a request for a valid change - which you stedfastly refused but finally endorsed - denotes an "obsession" on my part. You also write that I may be making false claims about my readings. Finally, you suggest that I "do something useful". Well, nothing insulting as long as it is written by yourself, I presume? I am puzzled by your comments but I will just remind you that, although your writing is very negative, I intend to forget it... at this time. OK, let's say that we started on a wrong footing & let's try to do better in the future.
3. I started this section by pointing to two weaknesses in the article. The first one, has been corrected and I will now correct the second - with the right references. I see the need for further changes and will address them in another section below.

--Domenjod (talk) 13:06, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

Problems with the lead section and the infobox

Hello everyone. Further to the previous section, I would like to point out that, in my view, the article is VERY GOOD, with excellent sources. Of course, any article - including this one - car be improved. Here are the two areas where I see a need for improvement :

1. Lead section. This is - in my view again - one of the very few weak parts of the article. WP:Manual_of_Style/Lead_section states that : The lead serves as an introduction to the article and a summary of its most important contents. and that The lead is the first thing most people will read upon arriving at an article, and may be the only portion of the article that they read. Finally the lead should identify the topic, establish context, explain why the topic is notable, and summarize the most important points, including any prominent controversies. Well, clearly, this is not the case. I would suggest to include in the lead (respecting the maximum of four paragraphs recommended) : context, objectives and results. As I wrote above, English is not my native language but I can have a go and try here in the talk page if nobody else is interested/available.
2. Infobox. This is a minor gripe but it seems to me that the infobox is in error as it qualifies the results as inconclusive. A look at the article's recent history shows that a previous statement was "tactically inconclusive" which may be true but irrelevant as Linebacker II aims were not tactical. The aims, as every book on the topic will confirm (Karnow, Hastings, Michel, Thomson, Heschmann, etc.) were 1- to force North Vietnam to sign the Peace agreements they had initially accepted but then rejected and 2- to obtain the release of the POWs. These aims were achieved (even if accepting those limited objectives didn't bode well for the future of South Vietnam. The comment from John Negroponte already quoted in the article comes to mind : ("[w]e bombed the North Vietnamese into accepting our concessions.") but the fact is that the objectives of Linebacker II were achieved and therefore the term inconclusive is inadequate - and should be replaced. In short : before Linebacker II, the Peace agreement was dead. After Linebacker II, the meetings in Paris were resumed, the agreement was signed and the POWs were liberated. If that's not conclusive, one wonders what is.

There are obviously other improvements that can be made in the article (source comments etc.) but, as far as I am concerned, I intend to focus first on the two above-mentionned points. Regards, --Domenjod (talk) 13:06, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

The lede is fine without revision, you have failed to explain what you believe should be changed. The result was inconclusive, because as John Negroponte correctly noted "[w]e bombed them into accepting our concessions." The U.S. could have signed the same peace deal in November 1972. The entire operation was unnecessary posturing by Nixon. Mztourist (talk) 15:59, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

Hello Mztourist. Here are my answers :

• My first point : Lead section. I already provided the link to the WP recommentations (WP:Manual_of_Style/Lead_section). If this article follows these recommendations, reading the lead section would give an overview of the whole article and would therefore mention :

1. that there were negociations in Paris
2. that the negociations broke down and that the North Vietnamese at one time refused to participate anymore,
3. that, after the bombing, the North Vietnamise accepted a resumption of the negociations. The Paris Peace Accords were signed and the American POWs were released.

Now my question: Do we have this info in the lead section ? Answer : No. So we need to include it. The article will then conform with the WP recommendations (and it will also be easier to understand).

Another - quick and simple - way of putting it : The words "negociations" and "Paris Peace Accords" do not appear at all in the lead section. I think they should.

• My second point : Infobox. Your answer states what looks like your personal opinion. You write : "The U.S. could have signed the same peace deal in November 1972. The entire operation was unnecessary posturing by Nixon.". This goes against what is written in the article : "Many historians of the Vietnam War follow the lead of President Nixon, who claimed that Hanoi's representatives had walked out of the talks, refusing to continue the negotiations. (ref)These include Stanley Karnow, Vietnam: A History, p. 652, Marc Leepson, Dictionary of the Vietnam War p. 228, John Morocco, Rain of Fire p. 146, and Harry Summers, The Vietnam Almanac, p. 228, and four of the authors of the U.S. military quoted in this article, Gilster, McCarthy and Allison, and Tilford.(/ref) Both sides had proclaimed their willingness to continue the talks; however, Hanoi's negotiators refused to set a date, preferring to wait for the incoming Congress. (ref name="Asselin, p. 139"/)" (I have replaced the "<" and ">) characters so that the text of the note is displayed).

Further to your sentence (The US could have signed....), this is pure speculation on your part. The vast majority of the sources cited in the article state exactly the contrary. And, by the way you can't sign a deal if the other party walks out and refuses to meet you anymore, which was the situation before LII.

Finally, the reason I quoted John Negroponte - which by the way is quoted twice in the article - (one too many?) - was to emphasize the fact that eveyone in Washington knew that the deal wasn't a good one. Among the many concessions made by the US, it allowed PRVN army units to remain in South Vietnam, etc... and Nixon had to twist Thieu's arm to obtain his signature. But in the end, even if, in order to be able to get out of Vietnam and recover their POWs, the US had settled for very limited objectives, they achieved them :

1. There were negociations
2. The negociations broke down (whose fault it was is almost irrelevant in this article)
3. The US launched operation Linebacker II
4. The North Vietnamese accepted a resumption of the negociations
5. The Peace Accords (good or bad, again this is irrelevant in this article) were signed and the POWs were released
6. The American objectives (getting out of Vietnam and obtaining the liberation of the POWs) were achieved, even if the future was bleak for South Vietnam (and even more so after Watergate)

So, with Operation Linebacker II, the Nixon administration achieved its (limited) objectives and the results can definitely NOT be termed indecisive. Every one of the points exposed above is written - and correctly sourced - in the article. So there is no reason for the Infobox to diverge from what the article says.

--Domenjod (talk) 09:01, 11 August 2022 (UTC)

I am at this moment writing about the negotiations and Linebacker II on 1972 in the Vietnam War. That expansion has made it abundantly clear that Negroponte was correct. You say that "whose fault it was is almost irrelevant in this article" is completely incorrect as it goes to the heart of the operation, its purpose and outcome.

The US and North Vietnam had a tentative deal in late October when Kissinger declared "Peace is at hand." Kissinger introduced new demands on 20 November in an attempt to pacify Thieu. The North Vietnamese refused those new demands, but did not "walk out" of the talks. Kissinger left Paris on 13 December. On 14 December Nixon, Kissinger and Haig agreed to bomb North Vietnam to force concessions. On 17 December the US began mining North Vietnamese ports again. On 18 December the US began Linebacker II. On 21 December the North Vietnamese walked out of the talks. ON 29 December Linebacker II ended. On 6 January 1973 the peace talks resumed and Nixon instructed Kissinger "to accept the draft agreement of October 1972 with a few cosmetic changes to make it appear the U.S. had gained something in the negotiations." The final peace accords signed on 27 January 1973 allowed North Vietnam to leave 150,000 soldiers and to retain the territory it controlled in South Vietnam, exactly the issues that Nixon supposedly launched Linebacker II over and were the reason why Thieu opposed the accords and had to be coerced into signing them.

Linebacker II was accordingly completely unnecessary and inconclusive as the Nixon administration could have acheived the same peace deal in October 1972 without the loss of lives and material. Mztourist (talk) 09:34, 11 August 2022 (UTC)

Hello again, Mztourist and thanks for your quick answer.

Looking at the three paragraphs in your answer, and just to let you know where I come from, let me first quote the sentence at the top of this page (and any WP Talk page as a matter of fact) : This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Operation Linebacker II article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

So your assertion that That expansion has made it abundantly clear that Negroponte was correct. poses a problem :

1. If it reflects only your personal opinion, it is interesting but doesn't belong in Wikipedia
2. If not, what Negroponte said is already in there (in fact twice). Passing judgement on whether he was right or wrong is of little importance if this opinion is not sourced.
3. In any case Negroponte was not the man conducting the negociations.

No comment on your second paragraph, which is fine for me except when you write that letting the PRVN army remain in South Vietnam was : exactly the issues that Nixon supposedly launched Linebacker II over. This is incorrect. Nixon launched LII because the North Vienamese had walked out. As correctly mentionned - and sourced - in the article (see paragraph Negociations) : On 22 December, Washington asked Hanoi to return to the talks with the terms offered in October.

As for the statement : Linebacker II was accordingly completely unnecessary and inconclusive as the Nixon administration could have acheived the same peace deal in October 1972 without the loss of lives and material., I can see three problems with it :

1. It seems - again - to reflect your personal opinion. Just remember : a deal could NOT be signed, not because the North Vietname balked (just like Thieu) but because they WALKED OUT and time was short for Nixon with the threat of the new, hostile congress convening early in the new year and cutting the funds for the war.
2. It sounds like speculation (The Nixon administration COULD have achieved the same peace deal....). There is no room for speculation in Wikipedia. The fact is that negociations were stopped and that, after LII, they started again - and the deal was signed. "What if" theories are of secondary interest in an encyclopedia.
3. I have already explained - at lenght - why you cannot call inconclusive an action which is undertaken in order to solve a problem (no more negociations) and which SUCCEEDS in achieving the result it seeked to obtain (negociations again and signature of a deal). Again, whether the deal was good, bad, moral or immoral or could have been achieved earlier is irrelevent to the article. The fact is : before LII, there was no deal. After LII, as you wrote in your second paragraph, a deal was made and signed (quoting from you  : On 21 December the North Vietnamese walked out of the talks. ON 29 December Linebacker II ended. On 6 January 1973 the peace talks resumed and Nixon instructed Kissinger "to accept the draft agreement of October 1972 with a few cosmetic changes to make it appear the U.S. had gained something in the negotiations."° Eveyone agrees that the deal arrived at in January was in fact no better than what had been discussed in November but - again - the FACT is that in December, after the North Vietname walked-out, there was no deal at all and in January, there was one and the US were out of Vietnam.

PS : By the way. I don't know if inconclusive is the right word to describe an action. I have found instances of inconclusive talks or inconclusive data but inconclusive action sounds odd. What do you think?

--Domenjod (talk) 13:41, 11 August 2022 (UTC)

You state "Nixon launched LII because the North Vietnamese had walked out" that is patently incorrect as shown by the day by day account. Nixon launched Linebacker II on the 18th, the North Vietnamese walked out on 21st. Linebacker II caused the breakdown of negotiations, it was not launched because negotiations had broken down.

The operation was inconclusive because it achieved nothing that wasn't already available to the US, Linebacker II was a "solution" made by the US to a problem they had created. Here is Max Hastings in his book Vietnam An Epic Tragedy at page 649: "What followed was among the most grotesque twists of the war. President Nixon mandated an intensive new bombing campaign, supposedly in response to the communists' obduracy and explicitly for their failure to return American POWs. Yet Le Duc Tho's position in December was not significantly changed from that of October. All that was different was that South Vietnam had declined to endorse the proposed settlement. The most plausible explanation of what became know as Nixon's Christmas bombing campaign, Operation Linebacker II, is that it was designed as a show of strength to convince Saigon and the American people of the might and resolve underpinning the US commitment to South Vietnam - and to punish the North for four years' resistance to the will of Richard Nixon. The devastation changed nothing of diplomatic significance, but it proved to be the last important military act of America's intervention in Vietnam."

More from Hastings at page 663: "Many American conservatives kept faith with both the president and his policies: they accepted his claim that the bombing was necessary to pressure the communists to release POWs. Globally, however, Linebacker II strengthened an image of the North Vietnamese as hapless victims of unbridled US violence. The language used to denounce the bombing was hyperbolic, but almost half a century later the evidence suggests that Linebacker II was unjustified politically or militarily, except to serve the partisan purposes of the president. ... The Christmas bombing altered the diplomatic landscape by scarcely a jot or tittle from what it had been in October. A deal would come whenever the Saigon regime could be persuaded to follow it." So no, its not speculation, or my personal opinion at all Mztourist (talk) 14:13, 11 August 2022 (UTC)

Can you source your statement that Nixon launched Linebacker II on the 18th, the North Vietnamese walked out on 21st.? The 18th (December) is undisputed. But where did you find that the NV walked out on 21st? Karnow (p 667) just writes (about Nixon)...On December 14, he sent an ultimatum to North Vietnam to begin talking "seriously" within seventy-two hours - or else. Hastings goes one step further and states that - as early as 21 November, Kissinger read out to Le Duc Tho a note from Nixon instructing him to break off the talks (p-647/859 on my Kindle reader). AFAIK, Hastings doesn't mention if this was just bluff - or when the talks finally ended.

I read Karnow more than 10 years ago and downloaded Hastings' book a couple of days ago so I haven't read it entirely yet. Since all the other books I have pertain to the military side of the operation and do not describe the negociations, it looks to me that the question of who actually walked-out is still unclear.

Anyway, everybody agrees that there were no more talks by December (maybe as late as 21 December according to you) and that the negociations were re-started because of the bombing. Karnow writes : (p 668) : Four days earlier (that is on December 26), replying to an American message, the NV signaled their willingness to talk again as soon as the bombing halted (emphasis added by me). Hastings remains vague about the specifics of the walk out and the restart of the negociations and sticks to the general comments you quoted above.

I therefore still disagree about LII being "inconclusive". Stating - as you do - that The operation was inconclusive because it achieved nothing that wasn't already available to the US simply ignores the fact that when there are no more talks, nothing is available anymore while Nixon was under pressure to make the deal before his inauguration. Granted, the end result achieved was not better than what had been negociated in October/November but, whether it was the result of a US or NV initiative, the talks had come to an end and they were re-started after the end of Operation LII. Nobody can deny this fact. Maybe the word inconclusive should be replaced by another word like "disputed" or "contested" or "challenged" to reflect the fact that there is not an absolute consensus on the real role LII played in obtaining this result but I still don't think that inconclusive is correct. Further, I think that, whatever the name chosen, there should be footnote to explain this fact to the reader. --Domenjod (talk) 17:07, 11 August 2022 (UTC)

The North Vietnamese/Vietcong walkout on 21 December is detailed on Willbanks Vietnam War Almanac p430 and in contemporary reporting in the New York Times. Your statement above that "Nixon was under pressure" just confirms Hastings' statement that the operation was just "to serve the partisan purposes of the president." I repeat again, the operation was inconclusive because it changed nothing, the US and the North had largely agreed the peace terms in late October, Kissinger tried to change the deal in November to assuage Thieu and the North refused to accept those changes. The US then tried to bomb the North into accepting those changes, but the North didn't yield, Nixon was under huge domestic and international pressure to sign a peace agreement and so in order to restart the negotiations he stopped the operation and the resulting Paris Peace Accords were essentially the same terms as were available in October. Mztourist (talk) 02:54, 12 August 2022 (UTC)

Hello again, Mztourist (and anyone following this lengthy discussion)

First of all, thank you for the reference you provided (Willbanks Vietnam War Almanac, which I purchased and downoaded). I also downloaded "A Bitter Peace" and ordered "The False Peace" as they are both abundantly quoted in the article.

Now, as far as this section is concerned, I think that, rather than trying to convince each other, we should simply follow Wikipedia's rules, guidelines and recommendations. This means :

1. We should modify the Lead section to conform with WP:Manual_of_Style/Lead_section, which is not the case at this time. I already mentioned (twice) what I think should be there.
2. Since there are clearly two different views of the role Linebacker II played in ending the American part of the war (lets say Karnow's and Hastings' to keep things simple), this needs to be mentioned in the infobox as well as in the article. In fact, it is already in the article (see the note with the current number 34) but may need expanding - or not. In any case, it should also be mentioned in both Lead section and Infobox. And it is in fact the main reason why we can't use a word like "inconclusive" as this word clearly contradicts what more than half the historians and journalists have written. So using it is not neutral - and contradicts what is written in the article - which is more balanced. This is the reason why I proposed earlier that we should look for better words. I wrote (quote) : Maybe the word inconclusive should be replaced by another word like "disputed" or "contested" or "challenged" to reflect the fact that there is not an absolute consensus on the real role LII played in obtaining this result but I still don't think that inconclusive is correct. Further, I think that, whatever the name chosen, there should be a footnote to explain this fact to the reader. (unquote).

To sum up, you may think that Karnow was wrong and I may think that Hastings makes very general statements without real references but, in the end, both are distinguished historians and authors while we are not. Our names don't appear in the article's Bibliography. We are just two dedicated Wikipedians trying to improve an article and we should present fairly the different opinions that exist on the topic. Regards --Domenjod (talk) 17:51, 12 August 2022 (UTC)

No changes are required for the reasons I have explained above, inconclusive is an accurate statement of the outcome. I know that you won't agree with this, but unless you can convince other Users to your position, the current consensus stands. Mztourist (talk) 07:43, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

Whether inconclusive is correct or not is not the problem. You think it is an accurate statement while I don't but this is not the point. The fact is that both opinions exist and each is supported by authors and historians. Furthermore this fact is correctly stated - and correctly referenced - in the main body of the article but does not appear in the Lead section or in the Infobox. So neither you nor I should try to impose our respective opinions. As Wikipedia contributors we are supposed to implement the following recommendations:

# Lead section (extracts from WP:Manual_of_Style/Lead_section - italic characters edited by me) - (quote) The lead serves as an introduction to the article and a summary of its most important contents. (...) . The lead should stand on its own as a concise overview of the article's topic. It should identify the topic, establish context, explain why the topic is notable, and summarize the most important points, including any prominent controversies.. (unquote) Is this the case ? Does the lead mention that there were then - and there are still now - different opinions about the results achieved ? The answer is no. Therfore, we should include this information in the lead.

# Wikipedia's core rules state  : (Neutral point of view - italics addec by me) : (quote) Write from a neutral point of view. Make a fair representation of the world as reliable sources describe it. All articles should be balanced to convey an impression of the various points of view on a subject. (unquote). Does the word inconclusive in the Infobox accurately summarize all the opinions that are cited in the article ? Here again, the answer is no but you state that you refuse any change for lack of consensus. Well, as everybody reading this can see, at this time, and until more opinions are obtained, it is only you and me. You have already used that excuse of "lack of consensus" earlier when, you refused to mention SAC/8th Air Force in the lead section (even if they were clearly the main players with - depending on the source - 75 to 90 % of the total tonnage dropped during the operation !). Well, it took some time but you finally relented without asking for consensus, of did you not ?

So my question to you is : do you accept Wikipedia's rules and recommendations on lead section and neutral point of view and will you help me implement them? --Domenjod (talk) 09:08, 16 August 2022 (UTC)

I have made my views clear and have no interest in engaging further with you given your condescending tone. Unless you can bring other Users around to your view, the current consensus stands. Mztourist (talk) 09:10, 22 August 2022 (UTC)

Any reader of this thread will notice your answer to my questions :

• my questions : Do you accept Wikipedia's rules and recommendations on lead section and neutral point of view and will you help me implement them? --Domenjod (talk) 09:08, 16 August 2022 (UTC)
• your answer : (quote) I have made my views clear and have no interest in engaging further with you given your condescending tone. Unless you can bring other Users around to your view, the current consensus stands. (unquote)

Any reader of this thread will also notice how long it took you to accept even a very minimal, basic, change (mentioning SAC/8th Air force in the lead section) that anyone who can read would have accepted immediately. Now, what seems to be your standard excuse (my "condescending tone") is not convincing and, as you know full well, the "consensus" you mention is very weak with only two persons - you and me - communicating so far. As I am busy doing other things right now, I'll get back on this topic in a few days. --Domenjod (talk) 12:39, 22 August 2022 (UTC)

Any reader of this thread will also notice that you have been aggressive and confrontational in your views. The loudest voice in the room isn't always the correct one. Intothatdarkness 15:26, 22 August 2022 (UTC)

Hello @Intothatdarkness:. Thank you for your message. I also hope any reader of this thread will have also noticed my surprise when, after pointing to manifest errors in the lead section of the article, the only answer I got from a regular contibutor who claims to be an expert on the topic (quote I have written the majority of the WP pages on the Vietnam War, so yes, I have read extensively about Operation Linebacker II (unquote) was a statement that 8th Air Force/SAC MAY have played a role but that it was a 7th Air Force operation. (Please remember the lead mentioned neither SAC nor 8th Air Force when I started the thread, in spite of the fact that they dropped - depending on the source - between 75 and 88% of the total bomb tonnage delivered in the operation. So please also remember I was not writing to a shy beginner but to someone claiming to have written the majority of the WP pages on the Vietnam War (quite a claim, right?) but who flatly refused to correct a mistake that any first-time reader on the topic could notice. Our expert intitially maintained that consensus was needed before modifying the article then changed his mind and finally did it without asking anyone else.

My second remark was about the fact that the lead section didn't meet Wikipedia recommendations - a fact which is pretty easy to verify, all you have to do is read WP:Manual_of_Style/Lead_section. It was met with another negative answer by the same expert. (quote) The lede is fine without revision, you have failed to explain what you believe should be changed. (unquote). Anyone reading the thread, can see the explanations I provided.

Finally, I pointed to the mention in the Infobox that results of Linebacker II were inconclusive in spite of the fact that this evaluation is definitively NOT shared by many historians who have written on the topic. I further sugggested that, therfore, either this word should be replaced by a better word or at least, that a note should be added. What comment did I get ? : Nope, everything is fine.

So, I hope you are not only interested in pointing to who spoke the loudest (and why) but also in how we can improve this article. As I have already mentioned above, I think that, overall, the main body of the article is very good and balanced but that the lead section and infobox both need improvement. If you agree, then let's do it. Regards, --Domenjod (talk) 17:16, 22 August 2022 (UTC)

PS : I agree with what you added in the thread above regarding SAC/8th Air Force. In my opinion, explaining the relationship between the two entities is useful but not of paramount importance as far as the lead section is concerned. By the way, I have already amended the table in the "Air order of battle" paragraph to mention the 8th AND 7th Air Forces. Remember the 8th wasn't even mentioned there. But no problem if you want to mention the 2 entities in the lead.

Given the shifting nature of command relationships during Linebacker II, I think your explanation is a bit simplistic. SAC handled the majority of planning (micromanaged, actually) during the first part of the campaign. During the bombing pause and reassessment the planning process shifted. By night seven, SAC had pushed some mission planning down to 8th AF, but continued to meddle with _target selection and scheduling. SAC also continued to refuse to coordinate with 7th AF, who was providing most of the strike protection support. There are some other errors in the article proper, but that can be approached at a later date. Intothatdarkness 18:21, 22 August 2022 (UTC)

I understand - and agree with - the first part of your post (SAC handled the majority of planning etc...). But for the second part what source are you using for (...but continued to meddle with _target selection and scheduling. SAC also continued to refuse to coordinate with 7th AF, who was providing most of the strike protection support? Can you please say where you found the reference for the sentence : SAC also refused to coordinate with 7th AF? Thanks. BTW, I also agree with : There are some other errors in the article proper, but that can be approached at a later date --Domenjod (talk) 19:11, 22 August 2022 (UTC)

That is out of Michel's 11 Days. 8th AF refused to send a representative to at least one conference 7th AF held (which included the naval elements) to help coordinate and plan strike support, and SAC continually went its own way during the majority of Linebacker II. Intothatdarkness 20:23, 22 August 2022 (UTC)

OK, thanks. I have read most of his books (Clashes, Linebacker I & II/Osprey) and I just started reading this one. Good reference for the military part of the operation. Frictions and differences in policy/strategy between SAC and the other players should be mentioned in the article and maybe even in the lead section. Then I'll read more on the political/diplomatic side. It is well covered - and referenced - in the WP article but since I've got The False Peace and Asselin's A bitter Peace, I'll read them next. --Domenjod (talk) 12:40, 23 August 2022 (UTC)

As I said on 6 August if you have the time to read so many books and engage in long debates about one detail of Linebacker II, why don't you do something useful like find and add all the missing citations? Mztourist (talk) 03:08, 24 August 2022 (UTC)

The photo at Anderson base

Does anyone have the names of the people who are in this photo? 216.71.102.197 (talk) 23:32, 25 December 2023 (UTC)