Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
My Lai Massacre
"The picture of the world's greatest superpower killing or seriously injuring 1,000 noncombatants a week while trying to pound a tiny backward nation into submission on an issue whose merits are hotly disputed, is not a pretty one."(Martin Luther King Jr.). In this short quote Martin Luther King Jr. perfectly described what happened at Vietnam and what many people thought of the war. As the war progressed many viewed it as a mistake and one of the reasons why was the alarming fact that many innocent people had died. What made things worse was that the government tried to hide this information from the people. One of the many appalling stories that made this war so gruesome was the My Lai Massacre. Many proclaim that the My
…show more content…
Lai massacre was the fault of the immoral US American soldiers from Company C commanded by Lieutenant William Calley. However, My Lai was actually a logical outcome of the United States becoming involved in Vietnam. Historical research shows that this wasn't the only atrocity committed, the individuals were mentally tired and scared for their lives, and the soldiers were trained to follow orders to defeat the enemy, which is what the soldiers thought that they were doing in My Lai. Sometimes when someone wants something really badly, they will go to extremes to get what they want. The Vietnam War was one of these cases. People, especially soldiers wanted everything to end, so they went to extremes in order to speed things up. They thought that if they killed more people the war would end sooner. Many of the people that the soldiers massacred were just ordinary innocent people. My Lai is just one of the known atrocities committed on Vietnam grounds. For example on February 8, 1968 the soldiers that were part of the B Company shot and killed 19 civilians. Nick Turse and Deborah N. state in their article that “documents detail 320 alleged incidents that were substantiated by Army investigators.” (Nick Turse and Deborah N.). This is not even including My Lai. This is proof that My Lai wasn’t only a single incident that hadn’t happened before. The Vietnam War was full of these kind of events. Many innocent people died on the grounds of Vietnam. Even the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki during World War II could be considered an atrocity because a lot of the people that died were noncombatants. America bombed these cities and didn’t even stop to think that millions of innocent people would be affected. We did this because we were in the middle of a huge war and we wanted it to end. Looking at all of these events one could say war rarely ever brings good tidings. So if My Lai wasn’t a single incident then the blame shouldn’t only go on the people who directly committed the shooting. This was the logical expected outcome of the US getting involved in a war like Vietnam. Being far from home for a prolonged period of time while watching people die left and right makes most people want to go home. This is how a lot of the American soldiers felt after fighting a long Vietnam War that didn’t seem to be going anywhere. Things at Vietnam just got worse with every new day and the leaders kept loosing men. William Calley said in his last statement to his court Martial “When my troops were getting massacred and mauled by an enemy I couldn't see, I couldn't feel and I couldn't touch…” (William Calley). This caused the leaders to order what some people might think of as immoral commands. On the other hand, if you look at the reason for these commands you can begin to accept the fact. When the soldiers saw one of their companions get killed by the enemy they had no guarantee that they wouldn’t be next. Hewitt and Lawson say in their textbook that the soldiers were “frustrated by the rising casualties from an enemy they could not see.” They were scared because they didn’t know what to expect in the next minute. Many of them had families and friends that they wanted to return alive to. As Johnny Boy said in his Letter Home from Vietnam they were “all are afraid to die” and all they could do was “count the days till we go home.” (Johnny Boy). Everyone was homesick and many would do anything if it meant they could go home sooner. This is why they would obey the commands that were given to them even if they knew that it was morally wrong. Therefore, it wasn’t because William Calley and his men that were immoral, the troops were tired and scared for their lives and this all happened because America got involved in Vietnam. Before going into a big event like war one must first go through training.
The Vietnam soldiers were no exception. They were trained to follow orders that were given to them. The soldier had no right to question an order. If they did, strict consequences followed. William Calley explains this when he says during his trial, “all orders were to be assumed legal, that the soldier's job was to carry out any order given him to the best of his ability.” (Lt. William Calley). All of the orders were given because the leaders thought these commands would help the Americans defeat the enemy. Everyone at Vietnam was doing what they thought was expected of them. As Kendrick Oliver states when trying to explain why Charlie Company would kill civilians at My Lai “they had considered their conduct consistent with the attitudes and practices of their GI peers, with the policies of the military command, and with the conscience of the political nation at home.” (Oliver 252). People thought in order for America to win we just had to kill as many people as possible because that had worked in previous wars. John Kerry explains this situation when he says that in order for America to remain the superpower we “couldn’t lose”, “couldn't retreat”, no matter “how many American bodies were lost”. However, the soldiers also never knew who was or wasn’t the enemy. For that reason, if the civilian looked like the enemy, they must be involved with the enemy, therefore they were the enemy. As a result of this mindset the soldiers were convinced that they were killing the enemy. The My Lai Massacre was a consequence of American involvement in Vietnam because of the way the soldiers were
trained. If you were commanded to kill an innocent person who had done nothing to harm you, would you do it? Most people would answer “no” to a question like that. The soldiers in Company C were in a very similar situation. However, most of the soldiers obeyed this command. Many might wonder how these individuals could be so immoral because everyone has a free choice. On the other hand, if the situation is thoroughly examined one can come to the conclusion that it wasn’t because the soldiers were so immoral that My Lai happened. When ap person is placed in a situation like the Vietnam War the situation can be looked at from a different perspective. This situation can be looked at as a logical consequence of the Vietnam War. It can be seen like this because declassified papers show that this wasn't the only atrocity committed, the individuals were tired of the war and dreadfully scared for their lives, and the soldiers were trained to follow orders in order to defeat the enemy, which is what the soldiers thought that they were actually doing in My Lai. In conclusion, whether we like it or not atrocities like the one in My Lai will take place as long as wars go on.
Another atrocity that occurred during this war was the My Lai Massacre. This was the mass murder of unarmed civilians in South Vietnam during March 16, 1968. Around November 1969, the world saw this and was outraged with the killings of innocent civilians prompting and giving the public more reasons to stop the war. Although the war was very unpopular, men and women were still fighting and dying for America. Heroes such as Captain John W, Ripley of Dong Ha, Medal of Honor recipients, and overall troops that gave the ultimate sacrifice were forgotten for a brief period.
It is very reasonable to say that American soldiers entering the Vietnam were not disciplined enough. The average age of a soldier in Vietnam was eighteen. Nobody found it necessary to train these kids to handle all the problems they run into. The service ruined their late childhood and they had to grow up early! If anything went wrong, they would simply blame the officer in charge. Tim O'Brien illustrated this nicely in his story In The Field. Lieutenant Jimmy Cross felt guilty for Kiowa's death. He blamed himself for not thinking about his troops even though he did what he was supposed to do. Couple of soldiers were pissed off about Kiowa's death. They blamed it all on Lieutenant even though they knew it was not his fault. Then they let their emotions out and the situation turned to be out of control. O'Brien describes it syntactically. He is trying to persuade us that all the soldiers knew Jimmy was not guilty, but some soldiers just had to blame it on somebody.
War has always been an essential ingredient in the development of the human race. As a result of the battles fought in ancient times, up until modern warfare, millions of innocent lives have ended as a result of war crimes committed. In the article, “The My Lai Massacre: A Military Crime of Obedience,” Herbert C. Kelman and V.Lee Hamilton shows examples of moral decisions taken by people involved with war-related murders. This article details one of the worse atrocities committed during the Vietnam War in 1968 by the U.S. military: the My Lai Massacre. Through this incident, the question that really calls for psychological analysis is why so many people are willing to formulate , participate in, and condone policies that call for the mass killings of defenseless civilians such as the atrocities committed during the My Lai massacre. What influences these soldiers by applying different psychological theories that have been developed on human behavior.
Martin Luther king states 7 arguments to show his opposition to the Americans aiding the Vietnam at war. One of the reason he is against the war is that, he is against violence and America is promoting violence by fighting against the Liberation Front. It states as he walk among the ghettos of the North, and saw these “desperate, rejected and angry young men” using the “Molotov cocktails,” using violence he told them that violence is not the solution to their problems, rather they should approach a nonviolent solution. They asked him, then “what about Vietnam?” (King, 152) this question provoked him to speak against the war. In conclusion, in order for the violence to stop, in America, the government have to take the first step, so that the
Kerry brings about this argument in many ways including when he states, “Someone has to die so that president Nixon won’t be, and these are his words, ‘the first president to lose a war.’” By showing how Americans lives are being lost due to “America’s Pride” this poses the question: What is the true motivation for the war? He poses this question once again when he states, “We watched pride allow the most unimportant battles to be blown into extravaganzas, because we couldn’t lose, and we couldn’t retreat, and because it didn’t matter how many American bodies were lost to prove that point” He once again drills the lack of moral motivation behind the war into his audience’s heads. He refers to American’s lives as “American Bodies” showing once again how soldiers are being dehumanized ultimately to “prove a point”. In both of these statements Kerry intentionally leaves out the mention of a moral purpose because he is trying to get at the loss of those intentions. By revealing the Vietnam War for what it is, he hopes to shake his audiences reasoning for letting the war
Most of the soldiers did not know what the overall purpose was of fighting the Vietnamese (Tessein). The young men “carried the soldier’s greatest fear, which was the fear of blushing. Men killed, and died, because they were embarrassed not to. It was what had brought them to the war in the first place” (O’Brien 21). The soldiers did not go to war for glory or honor, but simply to avoid the “blush of dishonor” (21). In fact, O’Brien states “It was not courage, exactly; the object was not valor. Rather, they were to...
The incident is described by social psychologist Herbert C. Kelman and sociologist V. Lee Hamilton in the article “The My Lai Massacre: a Crime of Obedience.” Lt. William Calley, charged with 102 killings, claims to have followed orders from his superiors, only accomplishing his duty, which is also a theme throughout the movie, A Few Good Men. After presented with a request from William Santiago, a marine on his base, to be transferred, Jessup refuses. The film depicts, through Colonel Jessup's authority, the refusal to obey a reasonable request as well as the pride one possesses when fulfilling his duty and baring superiority.
On March 16, 1968, in the Quang Ngai region of Vietnam, specifically My Lai, the United States military was involved in an appalling slaughter of approximately 500 Vietnamese civilians. There are numerous arguments as to why this incident even had the capacity to occur. Although some of the arguments seem valid, can one really make excuses for the slaughter of innocent people? The company that was responsible for the My Lai incident was the Charlie Company and throughout the company there were many different accounts of what happened that reprehensible day. Therefore there are a few contradictions about what had occurred, such as what the commanding officers exact instructions for the soldiers were. Even with these contradictions the results are obvious. The question that must be posed is whether these results make the American soldiers involved that day “guilty”. There is the fact that the environment of the Vietnam War made it very confusing to the soldiers exactly who the enemy was, as well as providing a pent up frustration due to the inability to even engage in real combat with the enemy. If this is the case though, why did some soldiers with the same frustrations refuse the orders and sit out on the action, why did some cry while firing, and why then did one man go so far as to place himself between the Vietnamese and the firing soldiers? If these men who did not see the sense in killing innocents were right with their actions, then how come the ones who did partake were all found not guilty in court? The questions can keep going back and forth on this issue, but first what happened that day must be examined.
...ments and desensitized of their civilian mentality, making them walking, breathing killing machines. During war, this became apparent with the countless war crimes committed by soldiers; they were trained to not have any apprehension in regards to killing the Vietnamese, because they were “gooks” and of lesser form than a human. These violent events have scarred and traumatized some soldiers for the rest of their lives. Some soldiers have developed mental illnesses, such as Post Traumatic Stress Disorder and depression. Some veterans will always live their lives damaged and in fear. Some have already taken their own life because the burden of knowing and reliving what they went through during the Vietnam War was too much to bear. The only goal of the war was to gain a victory, another notch on America’s belt, regardless of how many lives it cost, including American.
Tragic events occur not only in the United States, but also all over the world. From these tragic events communities, families, and the government decide to place memorials for people that were lost and as a thank you for people protecting the citizens of the country. The Vietnam Veterans Memorial, The Wall, in Washington D.C. is one of these cases. However, what exactly was the purpose of this memorial? The purpose of putting up the Vietnam Veterans Memorial was not only to thank the veterans for their bravery, but to remind future generations about happened during the Vietnam War. Also, the memorial is important to help people and the veterans to accept the fact that the war actually
The Vietnam war has been referred to by many names, one of the longer ones was 'the cornerstone of the free world southeast Asia'. It was called that by John F. Kennedy. He was talking about Vietnam being and essential country in a non-communist world. He believed that if Vietnam became a communist country, all of the surrounding countries would also become communists. This is the main reason America was involved in the Vietnam war. Another reason was that America wanted to spread their “political ideas around the globe”. They wanted to do this so that their anti-communism stance was clear. The public also wanted to keep communism from spreading. To soldiers, the war was like a crusade, a great journey to purge the communists from Vietnam. Sadly, this is not what happened. The Viet Cong (VC) had far better tactics than the US. The VC was told to 'nibble at the enemy' so that he could 'neither eat or sleep'. This worked very well. Another demoralizing tactic the VC used was their landmines; they were designed to blow the limbs off the soldiers without killing them. This tied up hospital beds and meant the soldiers had to carry the wounded back to the base.
...nd innocent villagers of My Lai, it was a time when American’s questioned their own as being “bad guys” or “good guys”. Were America’s tortuous and cruel acts to be considered patriotic or dishonorable? Some Americans, with bitter feelings for all the American lives lost in the Vietnam War, gave credit to Lieutenant Calley for leading troops in participating in such an atrocious event. History shows that there is still much debate on some facts of the massacre and many stories and opinions, although we will never know the facts exactly, what we do know is that America will never forget this tragic event, it will be talked about in American History for many years to come, and the Vietminh hearts will always fill with sadness when they think of the many lives that were lost on that tragic day in history, their minds will always have unspeakable memories of that day.
March 16th 1968 oversaw a unit of highly trained US soldiers savagely execute several hundred Vietnamese civilians. They killed majority of the South Vietnamese Hamlet of My Lai. The My Lai massacre is remembered as one of the most vicious episodes of the Vietnam War. The victims of this merciless attack ranges from men, women to even small children. Many of these civilians were additionally sexually assaulted, tortured or injured severely. The plan was put into motion once the “Charlie” Company proposed a plan to torch the village that we’re suspicious of the Viet Cong. “The Viet Cong is a member of the communist guerilla movement in Vietnam that fought the South Vietnamese government forces along with the support of the North Vietnamese arms and opposed the South Vietnamese and US forces in the Vietnam War”( My Lai Massacre. (n.d.). Retrieved November 17, 2014, from http://www.history.com/topics/vietnam-war/my-lai-massacre). Their mission was to burn houses, kill off livestock, spoil crops, and pollute wells. Thus denying them of food, water, and shelter. The massacre of My Lai was ruthless and downright illegal, breaking the basic rules of Internal Humanitarian Law. Later on in the year of 2003 a similar massacre to My Lai took
Many immoral orders were given the day of the My Lai Massacre, but it is questionable how a military soldier would react to such vulgar commands. Within the United States Military, there were laws set up to protect a soldier’s morality and whether it is lawful or crucial to obey to have success in the war. William Cockerham and Lawrence Cohen, author and sociologist chair of the University of Alabama, elaborated on the morals of the My Lai Massacre in their article “Obedience to Orders: Issues of Morality and Legality in Combat among U.S. Army Paratroopers.” In the article, Cokerham and Cohen wrote, “A major question in the Calley proceedings was not so much whether the order was actually given, but whether a reasonable man should have followed such orders had been issued” (1274). Also, within the article of “Obedience to Orders,” it discusses, “most wars contain at least some unjust and immoral elements, but professional career-oriented soldiers… may clearly believe that soldiers had better carry out legal orders or else risk placing the country in grave danger” (Cokerham and Cohen 1277). These two pieces of evidence oppose each other when discussing whether immorality occurs in war. War does not specifically have a laid-out line of what is right and wrong, especially on the topic of being killed or killing others. However, the first quote entails that it is up to the
A war crime is an unjust act of violence in which a military personnel violates the laws and acceptable behaviors of a war. Despite all the violence in a war, a soldier shooting another is not considered a war crime because it is not a violation to the laws and practices of a war, and it is considered just. A war crime is defined as a “violations [violation] of the laws and customs of war” (“War Crimes”), and are attacks “against civilian populations, prisoners of war, or in some cases enemy soldiers in the field” (Friedman). War crimes are typically committed with weapons or by uncommon, cruel, devastating military methods and are “…Committed primarily by military personnel” (Friedman). There are many different types of war crimes one can commit, including “murder, ill treatment…murder or ill treatment of prisoners of war or persons on the seas, killing of hostages, plunder of public or private property, wanton destruction of cities, towns, or villages or devastation not justified by military necessity” (Friedman). Originally constructed as international law by the London Charter on August 8th, 1945 and further developed by the Hague Conventions of 1899, 1907 and the Nuremberg trials, war crimes are aggressive, unacceptable and unjust actions performed by military workforce that occur during a war.