On Fri, 03 Sep 2004 10:45:24 -0600, Ed Rasimus
wrote:


Various historians have viewed Linebacker II and reached different
conclusions. Eschmann seemed to see the campaign as very effective.

From the military point of view, yes, bombing was effective.

Clodfelter drew more subtle conclusions and leaned toward the classic
"bombing alone doesn't win wars" answer. Michel, doing the most recent
work and being the first with major participation with the NVN in his
research, ascribed losses to bureaucratic infighting, ascribed victory
to both sides by their own interpretation, and agreed with most that
there was a direct linkage between the bombing campaign and the
conclusion of the war.

I don't get that. Is the current opinion that North Vietnamese
conquest of South Vietnam was some other, different war from the one
that was "concluded" by Treaty in Paris?

It seems to me that Linebacker II had virtually no strategic effect as
far as South Vietnamese were concerned, they were wiped out from the
map.


Drax