Guy Alcala wrote:

Dweezil Dwarftosser wrote:

Guy Alcala wrote:

There is absolutely no support in the historical record, none, for Ed's belief that LB II somehow 'won' the war or even that it brought about significantly
better terms, or that Nixon and Kissinger were even trying to accomplish that.

Nope. The historical record categorically confirms the
fact that LB II won the VN war: it - and it alone -
convinced the N. Vietnamese that the gloves were coming
off, for the very first time.

Bull, John. LB I, the mining of the harbors, the stopping of their invasion with
heavy casualties did that. What on the LB II target list, other than Hanoi Radio,
hadn't we struck before?

Wrong question. (And my time near there was long over by then...)
The appropriate question is : "Did they think that LB I was an
anomaly (like the old Rolling Thunder program) that wouldn't be
resumed for years? If so, LB II convinced them we were serious
and would keep up - and increase - the pressure. Nixon was NOT
LBJ - though his motivation was likely just as political: do what
is necessary to END this thing ASAP, without it going down in the
history books as another Dien Bien Phu. If it meant the destruction
of all of NVN's capability to wage war, so be it. (Not a bad
objective during any war, eh?)

They had a choice: return
to the Paris talks with a fortright attitude toward peace,
or return completely to the stone age at home.

They had already agreed to the same terms in October, but pulled
out in November when the US tried to reopen the talks and negotiate
for new conditions [...]

I don't particularly care WHY they pulled out. LB II convinced
them to *change their ways* - which you conveniently would like
to ignore.

The fact that Nixon also had to "up the ante" with the SVN
government as well (Take the deal or we're outta here right
now...) does not diminish in any way the "motivation" which
was provided to the the N. Vietnamese to "coax" them back to
the bargaining table: LB II (and in general, the entire series).

Please refrain from confusing political goals and wartime
objectives - or attempting to dismiss military successes
as merely inconsequential "tools" of diplomacy. There is no
doubt they are tools - but unrivalled as a *enabler* of
diplomacy; without the will to use this tool effectively
(which Nixon possessed and LBJ did not) you get the Third
World Debating Society actions of the UN.