Talk:Operation Linebacker II
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. | ||||||||||||||
| A | This article has been rated as A-Class on the quality scale. | ||||||||||||||
|
|||||||||||||||
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)
Contents |
[edit] 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)
[edit] 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)
[edit] 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[[3]] and Dresden[[4]]. 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. 74.255.67.115 04:10, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Casualties
This site [[5]] 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)
[edit] 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)
[edit] 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)
[edit] 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)
