Military History

Blogging about the Battlefield since 2005

Archive for the ‘Vietnam War’ Category

For Love of Liberty: The Story of America’s Black Patriots

Posted by Daniel Sauerwein on October 14, 2010

I received information about this resource a few weeks ago and have meant to post it up here. For Love of Liberty tells the story of African-American contributions to America’s military history. The website will be closing soon, due to an apparent lack of funding, so go there soon to check out photos and other materials. I am making available chapters of the documentary and the film, including facilitator guides, so that this information is available to educators. Below is information about this program.

The website:

You can download the facilitator guides at this link: (I have attached them for you)

For Love of Liberty Documentary Links:

Chapter 1: Introduction

Chapter 2: The Revolution

Chapter 3: The Civil War

Chapter 4: WWI

Chapter 5: WWII

Chapter 6: The Korean War

Chapter 7: The Vietnam War

Chapter 8: The Middle East

Chapter 9: Conclusion

Play All:

You can view photos here.

Please check out this information and consider showing it to students.

Posted in 20th Century Military History, 21st Century Military History, American Military History, Cold War, Conflict, General, Global War on Terror, Gulf War/Operation Desert Shield/Storm, Indian Wars, Korean War, Spanish-American War, US Air Force, US Army, US Coast Guard, US Marine Corps, US military, US Navy, Vietnam War, World War I, World War II | Tagged: , , | 1 Comment »

Legion documentary now available on DVD | The American Legion | Veterans Serving Veterans

Posted by Daniel Sauerwein on July 30, 2010

Legion documentary now available on DVD | The American Legion | Veterans Serving Veterans.

Posted in 20th Century Military History, American Military History, Cold War, Global War on Terror, Gulf War/Operation Desert Shield/Storm, Korean War, US Air Force, US Army, US Coast Guard, US Marine Corps, US military, US Navy, Vietnam War, World War I, World War II | Tagged: , | Leave a Comment »

The Vietnam War from All Sides: Americans and Vietnamese Reflect on Their Mistakes and on Each Other

Posted by Daniel Sauerwein on August 12, 2007

This paper was originally written for one of my history classes and I hope you enjoy it.
Author’s update: After consideration, I have chosen to remove the citations from this paper for this post to prevent the misuse of the paper. I am more than happy to provide interested scholars with a copy.

The war in Vietnam fosters much debate in the United States. One of the debates is on how the belligerents prosecuted the war. Participants on all sides of the conflict present conflicting views on the waging of the Vietnam War, with some arguing that the war was altogether handled correctly, some arguing that parts of the conflict were handled well, while other parts were mismanaged, and others who argue that the war was completely mishandled. When sources from American and Vietnamese (including VC, NVA, and ARVN soldiers*) participants, as well as non-combatants are examined, the prosecution of the war is seen as possessing both mistakes as well as portions that were prosecuted well on all sides. In order to understand how this “middle-ground” prosecution of the war occurred, a brief examination of the war is necessary. This brief look at the history of the war will lead to examining the Vietnamese participants first with the Americans to follow. The result will illustrate both how the war was uniquely prosecuted, as well as how the United States, especially politicians, broke the rule of avoiding a land war in Asia for the sake of not allowing a country to become communist on its watch.

The origins of the Vietnam War trace back to many years before the first U.S. military advisors set foot in country. However, the war itself began with the end of World War II in the Pacific. With the defeat of the Japanese, the United States, through treaty, allowed France to return to control its colonial possessions in Indochina, which included Vietnam, Laos, and Cambodia. Starting in 1946, the government of France (headed by Charles de Gaulle), which also included support from the French Communist Party, attempted to take control of Vietnam. The French believed that their troops, who possessed superior training and equipment, could recapture Vietnam within a few weeks. Unfortunately, for the United States, Harry Truman supported the French in this effort. This American support for France was due to the efforts of the American government to contain the spread of communism. This is in contrary to Franklin Roosevelt, whom Ho Chi Minh hoped would support Vietnamese independence, as Roosevelt believed in decolonization, since the Vietnamese had aided in the fight against the Japanese. Ho envisioned an independent Vietnam within a French Union, where France controlled national defense, diplomacy, and finances were and Vietnam administered all other governmental functions. The Indochina War lasted from 1946 to 1954, with American aid to France comprising seventy percent of the French defense budget by 1954. President Eisenhower sympathized little with France, but feared Vietnam falling to communism and felt it better to send money and supplies rather than sending in troops or air strikes.

That same year, the French were defeated at Dien Bien Phu by Ho’s forces. After the defeat of the French, the Geneva Conference divided Vietnam at the seventeenth parallel, which did not satisfy Ho Chi Minh, who wanted the partition line further south at the thirteenth parallel. Another event that occurred at this time was the formation of the Southeast Asia Treaty Organization (SEATO) in 1955. The charter nations of SEATO included Australia, France, New Zealand, Pakistan, the Philippines, Thailand, the United Kingdom, and the United States. SEATO was a “collective defense arrangement calling for mutual help and consultation to resist overt Communist aggression or other acts threatening international security.” SEATO would later include South Vietnam, Laos, and Cambodia among its members. SEATO created problems, especially when South Vietnam was included, as the Geneva Conference stipulated that neither North nor South Vietnam could join into alliances with foreign powers.

Between the end of French occupation and the introduction of American combat forces in 1965, Vietnam experienced many turbulent events in its history. The promised elections stipulated in the Geneva Conference for 1956 that would bring reunification never occurred and many Vietnamese knew they would not occur. This is due to the Eisenhower’s realization that if Vietnam held elections, Ho would receive almost eighty percent of the vote. Thus, Vietnam remained partitioned, with the North becoming communist under Ho Chi Minh, and the South becoming a dictatorship under Ngo Dinh Diem, who the United States placed in power in the South due to his anticommunist views. It is interesting to note that the United States never signed the Geneva accords, which banned the introduction of new military forces to the area. This may be due to Eisenhower fearing charges of appeasement by more conservative members of his party. The result of the American support of Diem’s violation of the Geneva accords as well as America giving the South military and technological aid led to the creation of the Viet Cong. As Diem became more unpopular, the VC were able to increase in strength. Ultimately, the brutality of the Diem regime, which forced one Buddhist monk to set himself on fire in protest, led to its overthrow by the military and the assassination of Diem and his brother Ngo Dinh Nhu in late 1963. The fall of the Diem regime in the South paved the way for the eventual introduction of ground combat troops to Vietnam in 1965.

I. The North Vietnamese/Viet Cong view on the prosecution of the war by all sides.

The overall North Vietnamese perspective, which includes the Viet Cong, presents a view of the war that critically examines the prosecution of it, both on the American and South Vietnamese side as well as their own. Bui Tin, a former colonel in the NVA examines the war in his two works: From Enemy to Friend and Following Ho Chi Minh. Tin and others who fought on the same side not only criticize the American and South Vietnamese prosecution of the war, but their own as well.

In examining their own side, NVA and VC veterans note a few mistakes made in their prosecution of the war. For example, Tin notes that the North miscalculated the role of China in the war. Tin notes how the North had entered into secret agreements with the Chinese and Soviets for increased support. The Chinese even promised to intervene, much like in Korea if America invaded the North by air, land, or sea. However, no such aid came as China had learned harsh lessons from Korea and stayed out of the war, while North Vietnam insisted to the world that it had their aid. While the Vietnamese miscalculated in this area by underestimating Chinese assistance, Tin notes that the U.S., remembering its experience in Korea, overestimated the involvement of the Chinese in the war. In addition, Tin notes how during the Tet Offensive, the communist forces did not complete their objectives in Saigon, which included seizing the U.S. embassy, presidential palace, and Saigon. In addition, they also suffered heavy losses in fighting in Hue. Unfortunately, Tin states that his comrades did not learn from these mistakes and launched additional operations later in 1968 that led to more losses. The willingness for one side to admit their own mistakes is truly humbling, especially when that side is ultimately victorious.

The view of the American prosecution of the war put forth by their former enemies is quite valuable when examining the war. Bui Tin notes that the arrival of Americans in the early 1960s created worry amongst the Vietnamese, both North and South. Former Viet Cong Truong Nhu Tang notes that the National Liberation Front (Viet Cong) viewed the prospect of American forces as a nightmare that would lead to a more brutal war. Prior to actually engaging the Americans in combat, the North Vietnamese were fearful of the Americans as propaganda presented Americans to be large and muscular, especially African Americans, who possessed such strength and technology that they would overwhelm the Vietnamese. The North Vietnamese military command viewed the arrival of Americans as a shift in the nature of the war, both quantitatively and qualitatively. Once the NVA and VC engaged the Americans, their view of them changed. Tin notes that while the Americans had strong points, they also possessed significant weaknesses. One of the weaknesses he notes is that many of the Americans were poorly motivated draftees instead of a professional army. In addition, the Americans also lacked the experience of the terrain and culture of Vietnam. One counter to this was present among officers, especially pilots. Tin interviewed many captured pilots and found them to possess a great quantity of technical education, including college degrees, and overall highly trained. However, the knowledge of the country by these pilots was lacking. Overall, while the military possessed great training and firepower, they lacked in the arena of the human element.

The overall prosecution of the war by the Americans, when observed by the North Vietnamese, is full of mistakes. In addition to those mentioned above, the American military was hampered in other ways. For instance, Bui Tin notes that the generals did not possess full power; instead, the power for waging the war was managed by the political forces in America. The generals seemed to be controlled and held on a tight leash by the president, Congress, and other political entities. According to Tin, this prevented the American military commanders from adhering to Sun-Tzu’s advice of bold, decisive campaigns, as politicians forced the military to escalate instead of bringing all their power to bear on the North Vietnamese. In addition, the North Vietnamese forces observed that the Americans underestimated the resolve of their opponents, especially the willingness of the NVA forces to fight to the end.

Near the height of American commitment to the war in Vietnam, the prosecution of the war by the Americans as observed by the NVA and VC continues to possess the same mistakes as well as others that would further affect the American war effort in a negative fashion. One area that the Vietnamese noticed was the Tet Offensive in 1968. Bui Tin notes that from 1965 to 1967, the ARVN and U.S. military were on the offensive and had forced the Vietnamese into remote areas. He further notes how the North planned to use the offensive to influence politics not only in the South, but also in the U.S., with the hope of bolstering anti-war forces in American and bring them to power as it was an election year. An attack on the American base at Khe Sanh, which occurred a few weeks before Tet, was used as a diversionary to lull the cities into a false sense of security. The result of the Tet Offensive was a reevaluation of the situation in Vietnam by the world, especially American political circles. The mistake of Tet for the American prosecution of the war was in the claims that high-ranking officials in the American military made about the situation of the war, which claimed having the enemy on the run and that victory was around the corner. Tet shattered these claims and led to the development of a lack of confidence in America. Overall, the American prosecution of the war as viewed by their North Vietnamese counterparts was fraught with mistakes. Their overconfidence and lack of knowledge about both their enemy and Vietnam would lead them to political defeat in Vietnam.

The view of the ARVN by the NVA and VC and their prosecution of the war was one of both respect and slight contempt. Tin notes how the ARVN suffered from a “birth defect” resulting from its formation under the French colonial system. He also notes how the colonial upbringing of the ARVN caused it to have difficulty claiming patriotism and righteousness in the eyes of the Vietnamese and the rest of the world. Furthermore, while the ARVN produced some talented generals, Tin notes that many of their high-ranking officers engaged in business dealings on a greater level in contrast to NVA or VC officers. In terms of ability, the ARVN is viewed as having better training in most cases and matching their counterparts in the NVA and VC in terms of fighting ability. Tin adds that like his fellow NVA soldiers, many ARVN troops were from the peasant class, middle-class, and were products of a draft as part of a general mobilization. Tin does note some issues that hindered the ARVN in their prosecution of the war. He describes how both ARVN and U.S. forces each possessed their own command and that while these commands worked together closely, having one overall command would have allowed the ARVN and American forces to react quickly and effectively. Overall, the view of the ARVN by their opponents is fair, reflecting the brotherhood of war. Tin expresses his desire for veterans from all sides of the conflict to come together, reconcile their differences, and build friendships. He adds that this is necessary between ARVN and American veterans of the war, as he mentions some American veterans who spoke about the ARVN negatively. He feels that this is unfair as the ARVN fought bravely alongside Americans and lost more than the Americans in the war. Likewise, Tin states how some ARVN veterans describe the American forces as selfish and that they (Americans) used Vietnam as a testing ground for technology with no desire to win. Ultimately, Tin hopes that both groups can see the good in one another and put aside old differences. The overall assessment of the American and ARVN forces by their Vietnamese opponents is accurate and offers much information into what went wrong in Vietnam.

II. The South Vietnamese view of the prosecution of the war by all sides.

The ARVN’s prosecution of the war as well as their view of their American allies and NVA/VC enemies adds to the knowledge of the war, as the view of the defeated side becomes known in a unique way. While the Americans lost the war politically as noted above when discussing the NVA view of the ARVN, the ARVN lost much more, their country. With regard to their view of themselves, ARVN veterans tie some of their problems that they note to the involvement of America in the war. For instance, Nguyen Cao Ky, former South Vietnamese Air Force general and Prime Minister of South Vietnam notes how morale among the ARVN was low because of the American involvement, with one person observing, “Why should we fight? The Americans are doing the fighting for us. Let’s relax.” Ky also notes how the Vietnamese were resistant to change and clung to their old ways of life, which hindered the ability of American aid to help the people. ARVN veteran Luyen Nguyen, who led a group of select “commandos” who were South Vietnamese selected to participate in an American program that failed miserably involving placing the commandos behind enemy lines, noted that good benefits attracted many who were dissatisfied with their lives. He also notes that many deserted before a mission after they had received a few months of benefits. In addition to these issues, the ARVN faced a problem with corruption. For instance, Ky notes one division commander that used his troops to harvest cinnamon instead of for combat operations.

Their veterans note the positive portions of the war undertaken by the ARVN as well. Ky notes that as the Americans pulled out their troops in the early 1970s, the ARVN fought bravely in a few places like the heroic stand recalled by Ky during the Easter offensive in 1972. Furthermore, Ky recalls Ngo Quang Truong, supreme commander of ARVN forces, who author Robert Thompson described as, “one of the finest generals in the world.” In addition, Ky notes how Truong brought new life into the ARVN and held bravely on the DMZ until overwhelmed, refusing to retreat. The view of the prosecution of the war by the ARVN by its own veterans not only notes its own shortcomings as well as its successes, but also casts a unique look on the prosecution of the war by the NVA/VC and the United States.

The ARVN view of their former enemy’s prosecution of the war notes the brutality in how they waged the war. The ARVN notes the brutality of the VC during the Tet Offensive, who killed many innocent people, especially those who they viewed as enemies. One example, which Ky compares to Pol Pot’s Cambodia, occurred in Hue, where the VC killed many merchants and schoolteachers as well as those affiliated with the government or military. Outside of this, the ARVN veterans mainly examine their own prosecution of the war and that of the Americans, which may be due to attempting to understand how they lost the war.

The view of the American prosecution of the war by the ARVN is both respectful, but also highly critical. The ARVN viewed the Americans as generous, but also with an air of annoyance. They note that the biggest issue hindering the U.S. and their handling of the war was a lack of cultural awareness as well as arrogance. The South Vietnamese see this as a product of American ethnocentrism. One general notes how incidents relating to this cultural misunderstanding caused frustration and played into Communist hands. In addition to this arrogance, the South Vietnamese noted how many Americans lacked motivation. In addition to arrogance and lack of motivation, the South was uncomfortable with the level of waste exhibited by the Americans as they viewed the materials given by the Americans, particularly mechanical materials as very precious, as such waste was only possible with continued American presence. Another area of concern that the South Vietnamese had with the Americans was their perceived dependence on the U.S. For example, American forces often adopted a “take charge” attitude, doing all the work in a province themselves and often not informing ARVN commanders about operations, with the result being most ARVN generals being unaware of what the Americans were doing.

The South Vietnamese do mention some good things that the Americans did in their prosecution of the war. For instance, Lam Quang Thi credits the American officers serving as advisors with attempting to bridge the cultural gap and credits the American advisors with helping the ARVN to achieve many early victories. In addition, Ky notes that unlike in the cities, the Americans did not attempt to impose their ways on the villages and countryside. Overall, the ARVN assessment of the American role in the Vietnam War is fair, especially given the loss of their country after the withdrawal of U.S. forces.

III. The American view of the prosecution of the war by all sides.

The American view of the war is critical as well as respectful of all sides, including their own. With regard to their own waging of the war, Americans discuss their mistakes quite well. For instance, one area that hampered the Americans was the political control of the military. The late Col. David Hackworth notes how many high-ranking generals and politicians did not understand the war, which needlessly cost lives. This political running of the war is evident even very early in the war. One general noted after the Ia Drang battle that he wanted to chase the enemy into Cambodia and destroy them, and that he was encouraged in this by Saigon, but that Washington did not allow it. This reluctance on the part of the politicians to allow the soldiers to run the war prevented the Americans from waging the war more effectively, which Tin notes above when he described the inability for the U.S. to follow Sun-Tzu’s rule.

Another area that hurt the Americans in their waging of the war was in incompetent leadership from young officers. This led to an increase in the number of “fraggings” of officers by enlistees. Hackworth notes how many inexperienced lieutenants who were not properly equipped to lead a rifle platoon commanded. Lack of experience was also enhanced by the rotation system and draft. President Johnson refused to call up the Reserves for Vietnam, choosing instead to use the draft to create the manpower needed for Vietnam. The problem arose as competition between the combat theater and training facilities back home drew experienced leaders away from South Vietnam, replacing them with inexperienced persons. The result was a decrease in morale as well as an impression sent to the enemy that America lacked the resolve to fight the war.

Some American units were able to do well in Vietnam despite the issues listed above. The Special Forces, in some cases, felt at home in Vietnam and some personnel even had Vietnamese girlfriends. Other units, like Hackworth’s were able to develop tactics that worked against the enemy. Hackworth argued that had more units adopted such tactics, the U.S. would have inflicted great pain on the enemy.

As for the ARVN, Americans did not regard it well. Hackworth noted how his unit hated them, as they often avoided enemy contact. This may be in part due to the ARVN feuding with other South Vietnamese units, which Hackworth describes one that he witnessed in which an ARVN machine-gunner was shooting at Vietnamese mercenaries near the American base. Another reason for the disrespect may lie in racism as America had fought three wars in Asia and soldiers found it hard to distinguish between friendly population and the enemy, whom they derogatorily referred to as “gooks.”

In contrast, while the NVA and VC were demonized as stated above, the Americans also viewed them with more respect than their ARVN allies. This is mainly due to the skill and commitment of the enemy observed by the Americans. Hackworth describes the VC as “one of the most formidable the U.S. Army ever encountered” and compared them to Spartan warriors. In the book, We Were Soldiers Once . . . and Young, the story is described as not only a tribute to the Americans who died, but also to the NVA soldiers who died there, who are considered as having fought and died bravely and as being a “worthy enemy.” Clearly, the U.S. forces deep down respected their adversary.

The war in Vietnam and its prosecution on all sides is a worthwhile historical study. Not only are mistakes visible on all sides, but a respect for all sides is also seen. Participants on each side add their own unique experiences to the understanding of the war. North Vietnamese and Viet Cong accounts offer a glimpse into what our former enemy thought of the war and of the United States. South Vietnamese accounts illustrate not only American mistakes, but also their own as well in an effort to explain why they lost the war and their country. Finally, American accounts reflect on the war and attempt to reconcile with their old enemies as well as their old friends to bring closure to a troubled time in America’s past. For a fuller understanding of the war, one must examine accounts from all sides to know what your old enemy is thinking, as well as to correct mistakes made in the past.

* In order to prevent wordiness, the following abbreviations will be used for the Vietnamese forces on both sides: VC (Viet Cong), NVA (North Vietnamese Army, sometimes referred to as either the Vietnamese People’s Army [VPA] or the People’s Army of Vietnam [PAVN]), and ARVN (Army of the Republic of Vietnam [former South Vietnam]). Most other organizations that have abbreviations will be listed with full name and abbreviation in parenthesis after, with the abbreviation to be used every time after.

Works Cited

Appy, Christian G. Patriots: The Vietnam War Remembered from All Sides. London: Penguin Books, 2003.

Demma, Vincent H. American Military History. Volume 2: 1902-1996. Ed. Maurice Matlofff. Da Capo Press, 1996.

Diem, Bui. In the Jaws of History. Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press, 1999.

Diggins, John Patrick. The Proud Decades: America in War and Peace, 1941-1960. New York: W. W. Norton & Company, 1988.

Hackworth, David H. Steel My Soldiers’ Hearts: The Hopeless to Hardcore Transformation of U.S. Army, 4th Battalion, 39th Infantry, Vietnam. New York: Touchstone, 2002.

Hermies, Walter G. American Military History. Volume 2: 1902-1996. Ed. Maurice Matloff. Da Capo Press, 1996.

Isserman, Maurice and Michael Kazin. America Divided: The Civil War of the 1960s. 2nd Ed. New York: Oxford University Press, 2004.

Ky, Nguyen Cao. Buddha’s Child: My Fight to Save Vietnam. New York: St. Martin’s Press, 2002.

Ky, Nguyen Cao. How We Lost the Vietnam War. New York: Cooper Square Press, 2002.

Moore, Harold G. and Joseph L. Galloway. We Were Soldiers Once . . . and Young: Ia Drang-the Battle that Changed the War in Vietnam. New York: Harper Perennial, 1993.

Tang, Truong Nhu. A Viet Cong Memoir: An Inside Account of the Vietnam War and Its Aftermath. New York: Vintage Books, 1985.

Thi, Lam Quang. The Twenty-five Year Century: A South Vietnamese General Remembers the Indochina War to the Fall of Saigon. Denton, TX: University of North Texas Press, 2001.

Tin, Bui. Following Ho Chi Minh: Memoirs of a North Vietnamese Colonel. Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press, 1995.

Tin, Bui. From Enemy to Friend: A North Vietnamese Perspective on the War. Annapolis, MD: Naval Institute Press, 2002.

Posted in Vietnam War | 8 Comments »

How Does My Lai Compare to the Incident at Haditha?

Posted by Daniel Sauerwein on June 21, 2007

I wrote this article while serving as an intern for the History News Network (HNN) from January to August of 2006. The article can also be found here. Editor Rick Shenkman is usually looking for students to serve as interns, which are unpaid, but worth the experience. You can find more information on HNN’s internship program here.

There are many sides in the ongoing historical (and political) debate about America’s longest war, the war in Vietnam. There are those who are not sure, those who feel it was unnecessary, and those who believe that the war was a necessary one in the battle against communism during the Cold War. Recent press reports about the possible killings of Iraqi civilians at Haditha, which are still under investigation by the military, bring up an event from the war that ended over three decades ago: My Lai (also known as Son My), where hundreds of South Vietnamese civilians were slaughtered.

Where is My Lai? My Lai is a small hamlet within the Son My village in the Quang Ngai province of South Vietnam (now Vietnam). A map from is shown below.

When did the event occur? The incident at My Lai occurred on March 16, 1968. It was a part of an operation to clear the area of Viet Cong (VC) forces.

What led up to the event? Until 1954, Vietnam was part of French Indochina (during World War II it was controlled by the Japanese and liberated by the British who returned the area to French control). The French faced difficulties in maintaining control and soon were defeated in 1954 at the Battle of Dien Bien Phu by the Viet Minh, who were led by Ho Chi Minh, a popular leader who once had asked Harry Truman for help (Truman ignored him). After the defeat of the French, Vietnam was divided in to a communist North Vietnam led by Ho and backed by the Soviet Union, and a democratic South Vietnam backed by the United States.

According to the Geneva Accords, signed in 1954, an election was to be held to unite the country under a single goverment in two years. Ho was widely expected to win the election. The Eisenhower administration, worried about a communist victory, spurned elections and dispatched military advisors to South Vietnam to help the Army of the Republic of Vietnam (ARVN). President Kennedy continued sending advisors; some 16,000 were in place at the time of his assassination. In 1965 his successor, Lyndon Johnson, began sending in combat troops. By the time of My Lai, America had an army of half a million in Vietnam.

Troops at My Lai were supposed to clear the area of Viet Cong. The high concentration of VC and communist sympathizers earned the area the nickname “Pinkville.” Prior to the incident, the soldiers involved were warned to expect engagement with Viet Cong forces. It was expected that the women of the village would be gone and the men would possibly engage the successful 48th VC Local Force Battalion. However, this would not be the case.

What transpired at My Lai? Company C of the 1st Battalion, 20th Infantry, which was part of the 11th Infantry Brigade, 23rd Division was commanded by Capt. Ernest Medina. His men, expecting to find the VC force, instead found women, children, and old men. Medina’s men, particularly those in 1st Platoon led by 1st Lt. William Calley, Jr., ran wild. They indiscriminately shot people and then rounded up survivors, led them to a ditch and shot them. More villagers were killed when their huts and bunkers were destroyed by fire and explosions. The killing only ceased when helicopter pilot Warrant Officer Hugh Thompson landed his chopper between the soldiers and the fleeing Vietnamese. According to a museum at My Lai 504 Vietnamese perished that day.

What occurred after My Lai? An attempt to cover up the incident lasted for a year. Then an Army investigatory board took charge. Out of the 30 persons aware of the event–most of whom were officers (including the division commander)–only 14 were charged with crimes. All except Calley had their charges dismissed or were acquitted. Calley, whose platoon was accused of killing 200 civilians at My Lai, was charged and found guilty of the murder of 22 civilians. He was sentenced to life at hard labor. This sentence was reduced to 20 years by the Court of Military Appeals, then ten years by the Secretary of the Army. Finally, having been deemed a “scapegoat” by the public, Calley was paroled by President Nixon in 1974. In 1998 Hugh Thompson and two other members of his chopper crew were awarded the Soldier’s Medal for gallantry, the seventh highest award a soldier can earn.

How did My Lai compare to what the enemy did? According to Lam Quang Thi, a former South Vietnamese general, the press coverage of the war by the U.S. was biased. In his book The Twenty-five Year Century, he noted that the media gave scant attention to Viet Cong atrocities such as the murder of 4,000 civilians in the city of Hue during the 1968 Tet Offensive.

How does My Lai compare to the incident at Haditha? News reports refer to a massacre at Haditha. But what makes a massacre a massacre? History notes an event known as the Boston Massacre, in which British soldiers killed five persons in March of 1770. When examined, Webster’s defines massacre as “the wanton killing of a large number of human beings.” While the killing of one person is a bad thing, the term massacre seems to have been the triumph of propaganda rather than reality. It does however properly describe My Lai in which hundreds were killed.

In Vietnam, American and ARVN forces faced a regular North Vietnamese Army (NVA) as well as the Viet Cong, who primarily relied on guerrilla tactics. In Iraq, there is no standing regular enemy army facing our troops. Rather, US troops face a terrorist force that uses tactics similar to the VC, which makes determining friend or foe difficult, as terrorists can easily blend into regular society.


Definition of massacre from Webster’s Dictionary.

Tucker, Spencer C., Ed. “My Lai Massacre”. The Encyclopedia of the Vietnam War. Oxford University Press, 1998. 280-1.

Lam Quang Thi. The Twenty-five Year Century. University of North Texas Press, 2001. 192.

Map courtesy of

Posted in American Military History, Global War on Terror, Vietnam War | 2 Comments »

Wayne's Journal

A life of a B-25 tail gunner with the 42nd Bombardment Group in the South Pacific

The ogre of the tale

“The historian is like the ogre of fairy tales:where he smells human flesh, there he finds his quarry.” / Marc Bloch

War and Security

History of war and current national security issues

Military History

Blogging about the Battlefield since 2005

The War Studies Group

Discussing war and peace throughout history

International History

Diplomatic and Military History since the Middle Ages

Skulking in Holes and Corners

Genteelly Observing the Enemy since 2011

Civil War History

The Blog Between the States.

Frontier Battles

Covering the wars for and against empire in America, 1607-1815

%d bloggers like this: