The Impact of Conflict on Civilians in Vietnam and Attitudes in the USA » The My Lai Massacre

What happened at My Lai

By 1968 American soldiers had been fighting guerrillas in South Vietnam for years. Many were angry and frightened. Friends had been killed by booby traps and ambushes, and the soldiers could rarely tell the Vietcong from ordinary villagers.

On 16 March 1968, Charlie Company of the US Army's Americal Division was sent by helicopter to the hamlet of My Lai 4 in Quang Ngai province. It was part of a group of villages called Son My. The soldiers had been told that Vietcong fighters were based there, and they expected a hard fight. They met no enemy fire. Instead they found farmers, women, children and old people, many of them getting breakfast ready.

Over the next few hours, soldiers of the company killed unarmed villagers. The number of dead is disputed. The US Army's own investigators later counted 347. The Vietnamese government gives 504, which includes a neighbouring hamlet. Most of the victims were women, children and older people. The senior officer on the ground was Captain Ernest Medina. The platoon leader in the worst of the killing was Lieutenant William Calley.

Not every American joined in. Some soldiers refused to fire. Hugh Thompson, an army helicopter pilot, saw what was happening and landed between soldiers and a group of villagers. He and his crew helped some civilians to safety and reported what they had seen to their superiors.

Key terms:

• Massacre: the killing of a large number of people who cannot defend themselves.
• Cover-up: an attempt to hide the truth about something wrong.
• Court-martial: a trial of a member of the armed forces in a military court.

The cover-up

The army did not tell the truth. At first it reported a successful battle in which many enemy fighters had been killed, so few people asked questions. Thompson's complaint reached senior officers, but a short investigation by an army colonel found nothing wrong and the matter was dropped. For about a year, the public heard nothing about it.

Many soldiers knew the truth but kept quiet. Some feared punishment, and some were loyal to their unit.

How the truth became public, 1969

The cover-up ended because individuals refused to stay silent. Ron Ridenhour, a former soldier who had heard about the killings from friends in Charlie Company, was not there himself. In March 1969 he wrote to Congress, the Pentagon and the President asking for an investigation. His letter led the army to start looking into My Lai.

In November 1969 the story reached the American public. The journalist Seymour Hersh reported it, and newspapers printed photographs taken that day by an army photographer, Ron Haeberle. Soon afterwards, former soldier Paul Meadlo described what he had done on television. The pictures and interviews shocked many Americans.

The army then set up an inquiry led by General William Peers. It found that there had been a cover-up and that officers had failed in their duty.

The trial of Lieutenant Calley

Several men were charged, but only Calley was found guilty. His court-martial began in November 1970. Soldiers described the killings to the jury. Calley said that he had been ordered to destroy the enemy and had followed orders. Captain Medina denied giving an order to kill civilians, and he was cleared at his own trial in 1971.

In March 1971 the jury found Calley guilty of the murder of 22 villagers, and he was sentenced to life in prison.

Effect on opinion

Americans were deeply divided. Some felt that My Lai proved the war was wrong and that the army could not be trusted. This strengthened the anti-war movement. Others thought Calley was a scapegoat for a war that politicians and generals had sent him to fight. Many people wrote in support of him, and 'Free Calley' stickers appeared on cars.

President Nixon ordered Calley to be released from the army prison and held under house arrest while his case was reviewed. His sentence was later cut, and he was freed on parole in 1974. Around the world, My Lai damaged the reputation of the USA and made many people ask whether the war was being fought by honourable means.

Exam-style question

Study Sources A and B.

Source A: From the evidence of Paul Meadlo, a private in Charlie Company, at the court-martial of Lieutenant Calley, January 1971.

'[Calley] said, "How come they're not dead?" I said, "I didn't know we were supposed to kill them." He said, "I want them dead." [Calley] backed off twenty or thirty feet and started shooting into the people.'

Source B: From the evidence of Lieutenant William Calley at his court-martial, 1971.

'I was ordered to go in there and destroy the enemy. That was my job that day. That was the mission I was given. I did not sit down and think in terms of men, women, and children. They were all classified the same, and that was the classification that we dealt with, just as enemy.'

How far does Source A support the evidence of Source B about why the killings at My Lai happened? Explain your answer. [8 marks]

Recap

• On 16 March 1968 soldiers of Charlie Company killed hundreds of unarmed villagers at My Lai 4. Hugh Thompson stopped some of the killing.
• The army hid the truth for about a year. Ron Ridenhour's letter in March 1969 led to an investigation.
• In November 1969 Seymour Hersh's report, Ron Haeberle's photographs and Paul Meadlo's interview made it public.
• Lieutenant Calley was found guilty of murdering 22 villagers in March 1971 but served only about three and a half years, most of it under house arrest. Americans were split between horror at My Lai and sympathy for Calley.