Teaching Strategy Michael W. Flamm
From Testimony to Tragedy: My Lai in Personal Perspective Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/maghis/article/22/4/54/962344 by guest on 29 September 2021
n March 16, 1968, U.S. Private Dennis command immediately after they occurred, Conti personally witnessed the events and, if not, why not? Did senior officers Othat took place in the South Vietnamese conspire to cover up the killings? Should village of My Lai. As he later testified, he and the killings at My Lai be prosecuted as war rifleman Paul Meadlo were guarding a group of crimes? Was the eventual court-martial of prisoners—mostly women and children—when Calley justified, or did the U.S. Army turn Second Lieutenant William L. Calley, Jr., ap- him into a scapegoat after the incident be- proached them. According to Conti, Calley asked came known? Should the testimony against when he and Meadlo planned “to take care of Calley and Medina—not to mention their them.” Conti explained what happened next: own accounts of what happened—be con- “I said: ‘We’re taking care of them.’ And he sidered credible? Who, if anyone, was ul- [Calley] said: ‘I mean kill them.’ Meadlo fired timately responsible for what happened at awhile. I don’t know how much he fired, a clip, My Lai? Even after lengthy military court I think. It might have been more. He started to proceedings, the answers to these ques- cry, and he gave me his weapon. I took it, and he tions remain ambiguous at best. [Calley] told me to kill them. And I said I wasn’t While a number of officers faced charg- going to kill them. At the time, when we were es in this case, the court-martial of Calley, talking, the only thing left was children. I told in particular, caused a firestorm of protest. Meadlo, I said: ‘I’m not going to kill them. He After much testimony and considerable [Calley] looks like he’s enjoying it. I’m going debate, he was convicted in March 1971 of to let him do it.’ So like I said, the only thing the premeditated murder of twenty-two ci- left was children. He [Calley] started killing the vilians. Calley then received a sentence of children. I swore at him. It didn’t do any good. life in prison at hard labor, although it was And that was it. They were all dead. He [Calley] later reduced to ten years. Calley would be turned around, and said: ‘Okay, let’s go.’ We the only soldier convicted of killing South turned around, and walked away (1).” Vietnamese civilians at My Lai. On the written page, the words have a blunt Lt. William Calley outside the courthouse during his From the start, public response to the impact. When voiced by a young person, they court-martial trial, 1970. (Image courtesy of University verdict was mixed. Liberals maintained have an even more powerful—almost haunt- of San Diego.) during and long after the court-martial ing—effect that endures across decades. Why? that the mass killing at My Lai was not an In part, the horrific scene almost defies compre- isolated incident. More importantly, they hension. In part, the average age of a combat soldier in the Vietnam argued, the murders constituted a war crime in which all Americans War was only nineteen. And in part, with the United States once again were implicated. “We sense—all of us—that our best instincts are de- at war, many of the moral and military issues confronted in My Lai serting us,” wrote Jonathan Schell, a New Yorker columnist, “and we continue to resonate today. are oppressed by a dim feeling that beneath our words and phrases, Almost forty years later, what happened at My Lai remains contro- almost beneath our consciousness, we are quietly choking on the blood versial (2). American soldiers from a platoon commanded by Calley of innocents” (3). On the other hand, conservatives considered My Lai in Captain Ernest L. Medina’s Charlie Company, 1st Battalion, 20th to be the tragic but predictable outcome of an ambiguous war in which Infantry Regiment of the 11th Infantry Brigade in the Americal Divi- communist guerrillas deliberately chose to operate among innocent sion massacred hundreds of South Vietnamese civilians, most of them civilians. They also condemned what the National Review described as women and children. Some soldiers raped some of the women before the “uncontrollable impulse not to blame the particular criminal, but killing them. When Ronald L. Ridenhour, a discharged veteran who rather to vilify America generally” (4). Considering the My Lai case to did not participate in the event, reported the episode over a year later, be an isolated incident, conservatives objected to the way in which the many questions arose: Were the soldiers following orders? If so, were media had rushed to judgment, exaggerated the event, and failed to those orders lawful? Were the killings reported through the chain of report countless Vietcong atrocities. Most applauded when Calley was
54 OAH Magazine of History • October 2008 Copyright © Organization of American Historians ▪ All Rights Reserved ▪ http://www.oah.org/pubs/magazine/ Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/maghis/article/22/4/54/962344 by guest on 29 September 2021
Photograph taken by U.S. Army Photographer Ronald L. Haeberle in the aftermath of the My Lai massacre. Killed by American soldiers, the victims of My Lai were mostly women and children. March 16, 1968 (Image courtesy of Wikimedia Commons.) paroled in November 1974. 3. Analyze the differences among historical, legal, and moral guilt. What follows is a teaching strategy designed to engage many of 4. Examine the issue of collective v. individual responsibility. the difficult moral, legal, political, military, and historical issues repre- sented in the My Lai incident. On Day One of the lesson, students will Procedures be introduced to the basics of military law. They will examine the brief- This simulation requires the use of James S. Olson and Randy Rob- ing conducted by Captain Medina prior to the operation and the orders erts, My Lai: A Brief History with Documents (Boston: Bedford Books, he gave to Lieutenant Calley during it. On Day Two, students will focus 1998). The instructor should either purchase a class set, have students on the actions and testimony of some eyewitnesses. On Day Three, buy the book, or place several copies on reserve in the library. Distrib- they will address whether or not American military leaders conspired ute the handout (located on page 57 below) a week or two in advance. to cover up the event, and who or what was ultimately responsible for Assign appropriate roles to individual students and explain to them what happened. that they must be prepared to put the testimony of their assigned wit- nesses into their own words. National Standards Era 9: Postwar United States (1945 to early 1970s) Day One Standard 2C: The student understands the foreign and domestic 1. Begin by discussing why Vietnam was such a difficult war for consequences of U.S. involvement in Vietnam. American soldiers. For background reading, see Ellen Frey-Wout- Standards in Historical Thinking: Historical Analysis and Interpre- ers and Robert S. Laufer, Legacy of a War: The American Soldier in tation Vietnam (Armonk, NY: M.E. Sharpe Library, 1989). Standard 3D: Consider multiple perspectives of various peoples in the past by demonstrating their differing motives, beliefs, in- 2. Discuss military law with specific reference to the Geneva Con- terests, hopes, and fears. ference and the Nuremberg Trials after World War II. For back- Standard 3F: Challenge arguments of historical inevitability by ground reading, see Norbert Ehrenfreund, The Nuremberg Legacy: formulating examples of historical contingency, of how different How the Nazi War Crimes Trials Changed the Course of History (New choices could have led to different consequences. York: Palgrave MacMillian, 2007).
Time 3. Review the concept of and specific ranks in the U.S. Army chain Three fifty-minute class periods. of command and emphasize that students should take this infor- mation into account as they take brief notes about the identity and Objectives testimony of each witness. They are also free to ask questions for 1. Evaluate the credibility of testimony. clarification. 2. Define the meaning of “war crime.”
Copyright © Organization of American Historians ▪ All Rights Reserved ▪ http://www.oah.org/pubs/magazine/ OAH Magazine of History • October 2008 55 4. Using My Lai: A Brief History with Documents, explore the brief- Endnotes ing that Medina conducted the evening before the operation. Have 1. James S. Olson and Randy Roberts, My Lai: A Brief History with Documents the student representing Medina testify fi rst, followed by witnesses (New York: Bedford Books, 1998), 77-78. 2-5. What orders were given? How were they understood? 2. The My Lai controversy has generated many books. For relatively contemporary accounts, see Seymour M. Hersh, My Lai 4: A Report on the Massacre and Its Aftermath (New York: Random House, 1970) and Cover-Up: The Army’s Secret 5. If time permits, discuss the issue of bias. Were some witnesses Investigation of the Massacre at My Lai (New York: Random House, 1971); more credible than others? Why? Martin Gershin, Destroy or Die: The Story of Mylai (New Rochelle: Arlington
House, 1971). For the fi ndings of the Peers Commission, the offi cial Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/maghis/article/22/4/54/962344 by guest on 29 September 2021 Day Two investigation, see The My Lai Inquiry (New York: Norton, 1979). For more 1. Review briefl y the previous day’s testimony. Then focus on what recent accounts, see Michael Bilton and Kevin Sim, Four Hours in My Lai happened at My Lai. Call to the stand witnesses 6-19, beginning (New York: Penguin, 1993); David L. Anderson, ed., Facing My Lai: Moving with Private Herbert Carter and ending with Calley. Beyond the Massacre (Lawrence: University Press of Kansas, 2000); and Kendrick Oliver, The My Lai Massacre in American History and Memory (Manchester: Manchester University Press, 2006). 2. If time permits, revisit the issue of credibility. Who was more 3. “Notes and Comment,” New Yorker, December 20, 1969, in Olson and believable—Calley or his critics? Why? Roberts, My Lai: A Brief History with Documents, 174. 4. “The Great Atrocity Hunt,” National Review, December 16, 1969, 1253. Day Three 1. Review the testimony of Medina and Calley. Then explore the Michael W. Flamm is professor of history at Ohio Wesleyan University. He investigation of My Lai, beginning with the testimony of the heli- teaches the U.S. history survey since 1877 and specialized courses on Viet- copter pilot, Warrant Offi cer Hugh Thompson, Jr., and continuing nam, 1960s America, and U.S. foreign relations. He also offers seminars for upward through the chain of command from Lieutenant Colonel high school instructors at Columbia University and Georgetown University. Frank Barker to President Richard Nixon. Conclude with the per- He is the author of Law and Order: Street Crime, Civil Unrest, and the spective of veteran Lewis Puller, Jr., a combat Marine who did not Crisis of Liberalism in the 1960s (Columbia University Press, 2005) and participate in the My Lai incident. coauthor of The Chicago Handbook for Teachers: A Practical Guide to the College Classroom (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1999). 2. After the witnesses have testifi ed, reach a “verdict” through a class vote. Using the ballot at the bottom of the handout, collect, and tabulate the sample ballots. BEST AMERICAN HISTORY ESSAYS 2008 3. Discuss the class verdict and the actual verdict. Were they similar or different? Why? OAH and Palgrave Macmillan 4. Discuss whether or not Calley could be considered a scapegoat, Publishers present the third annual regardless of the class verdict. Were his actions a symptom (the Best American History Essays volume, liberal view) or an aberration (the conservative view) of the way in which showcases the best American which the American armed forces conducted their combat opera- history articles published between tions? Was My Lai an isolated or typical event? the summers of 2006 and 2007. This third volume provides a quick and 5. Debrief the class by posing the following questions: comprehensive overview of the top a. Which witnesses were more or less credible? Is it possible to work and the current intellectual know what really happened? What should serve as the standard of trends in the field of American history. proof? b. Who was ultimately guilty (in a moral, historical, or legal sense) With contributions from a diverse for what happened at My Lai (everyone; no one; particular individu- group of historians, this collection als)? How do we separate and weigh collective versus individual appeals both to scholars and to lovers of history alike. Edited responsibility? Is institutional responsibility also a factor to weigh? by David Roediger, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign c. Can Hugh Thompson or Ron Ridenhour be considered heroes? and written by such prominent historians as, Anna Pegler-Gordon, Why or why not? Monica Richmond Gisolfi, Gloria L. Main, David M. Wrobel, d. Was My Lai a war crime? If not, how can we defi ne what a “war Michael McDonnell, Beth English, Jeffrey S. Adler, Carma R. crime” is? Do different cultures view war crimes differently? Do the Gorman, Jason Phillips, and Paul C. Rosier, this volume covers victors have the right to defi ne what is and is not a war crime? Are important themes to help understand the rich history of the U.S. war crimes the inevitable byproduct of military confl ict?
6. As a fi nal in-class or take-home writing assignment, have the TO ORDER Contact Palgrave Macmillan by visiting students make a case for why My Lai was (or was not) a war crime
56 OAH Magazine of History • October 2008 Copyright © Organization of American Historians ▪ All Rights Reserved ▪ http://www.oah.org/pubs/magazine/ Handout: The Tragedy of My Lai
HANDOUT: The Tragedy of My Lai
On the morning of March 16, 1968, American soldiers killed hundreds of South Vietnamese civilians in the small hamlet of My Lai. We will examine the event by recreating the testimony of participants, observers, and others. In preparation, please read the introduction to My Lai: A Brief History with Documents, pp. 1-25; study the following documents: 5, 7, 8, 12, 36, 47-49, 56-61, 62, and 66; commit to memory (in paraphrased form) the testimony of your assigned character(s) (make notecards if necessary, but do not read extensively from them; strive to make eye contact); give careful thought to the “Questions for Consideration” on pp. 205-206. Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/maghis/article/22/4/54/962344 by guest on 29 September 2021 The Witnesses: 1. Captain Ernest L. Medina (documents 14, 33, 41) 2. Captain Eugene Kotouc (document 13) 3. Private First Class Gregory T. Olsen (document 16) 4. Private First Class Harry Stanley (document 17) 5. Interpreter Nguyen Dinh Phu (document 23) 6. Private First Class Herbert L.Carter (documents 6, 19, 27, 44) 7. Sergeant Michael Bernhardt (documents 9, 42) 8. Reporter Jay Roberts (documents 1, 11) 9. Private First Class Thomas R. Partsch (documents 21, 51) 10. Private Robert E. Maples (documents 22, 29) 11. Private First Class Michael Terry (documents 24, 28) 12. Private First Class Dennis Conti (documents 25, 26, 43) 13. Private First Class Varnado Simpson (document 31) 14. ARVN Lieutenant Tran Ngoc Tan (document 50) 15. Civilian Nguyen Hieu (document 34) 16. Civilian Nguyen Bat (document 35) 17. Private First Class Larry Polston (document 30) 18. Private Paul Meadlo (document 64) 19. Lieutenant William L. Calley, Jr. (documents 10, 38, 63) 20. Chief Warrant Officer 2 Hugh Thompson Jr. (documents 32, 39) 21. Captain (Chaplain) Carl Creswell (document 40) 22. Captain Brian Livingston (document 52) 23. Specialist 4 Ronald L. Ridenhour (document 54) 24. Colonel William Wilson (document 55) 25. Lieutenant Colonel Frank Barker (document 2) 26. Colonel Oran K. Henderson (documents 45, 46) 27. Major General Samuel Koster (document 53) 28. General William C. Westmoreland (documents 3, 4, 68) 29. President Richard M. Nixon (document 67) 30. Marine Combat Veteran Lewis B. Puller, Jr. (document 65)
My Lai Ballot: Who should have been convicted for his actions during or after My Lai? _____ 1. William Calley _____ 2. Ernest Medina _____ 3. Other (______) ______4. No one
Copyright © Organization of American Historians ▪ All Rights Reserved ▪ http://www.oah.org/pubs/magazine/ OAH Magazine of History • October 2008 57