Analysis: Testimony regarding the My Lai Massacre
The My Lai Massacre, which occurred on March 16, 1968, was a significant and tragic event during the Vietnam War, where American troops from Charlie Company killed hundreds of unarmed South Vietnamese civilians, including women and children. This incident emerged against a backdrop of declining American support for the war, exacerbated by the earlier Tet Offensive. The shocking revelations of the massacre came to light in late 1969, leading to a formal investigation by the U.S. Army and the eventual court-martial of Lieutenant William Calley, the only soldier convicted for the crimes committed during the massacre. Testimonies from witnesses, including Herbert L. Carter, Robert Maples, and Dennis Conti, played crucial roles in the proceedings, highlighting the complexities of military orders, individual moral choices, and the broader implications of wartime conduct. Despite Calley’s conviction, he served only four months of a life sentence, which sparked national controversy and debates about accountability and justice. The My Lai Massacre remains a poignant reminder of the brutal realities of war and its impact on public perception, fundamentally altering American attitudes toward the Vietnam War.
Analysis: Testimony regarding the My Lai Massacre
Date: August-September 1969; November-December 1970
Author: Herbert L. Carter; Robert Maples; Dennis Conti; Aubrey Daniels; George Latimer; Richard Kay
Genre: testimony
Summary Overview
On March 16, 1968, Charlie Company (First Battalion, 20th Infantry Regiment, 11th Infantry Brigade, 23rd Infantry Division) got summoned to My Lai to counteract Viet Cong activity in the area. By day's end, members of the unit had slaughtered hundreds of South Vietnamese civilians. More than a year passed before the US Army began an extensive investigation, at which point Herbert L. Carter's testimony was collected. When news of the events broke in late 1969, the reports shocked the international community and further depleted support for the war among the American public. The US government charged Lieutenant William L. Calley with six counts of premeditated murder. At his trial in late 1970 and early 1971, Robert Maples and Dennis Conti gave their testimonies. Although Calley was found guilty and given a life sentence, he was later released, having served only four months in prison. The massacre had a lasting effect on the American public, bringing the violence of the war into public view and support for the war to a new low.
Defining Moment
American support for the war in Vietnam was already low and on the decline. As early as March 1967, Secretary of Defense Robert McNamara observed that the war was “unpopular” and “becoming increasingly unpopular as it escalates.” One year later, North Vietnamese and Viet Cong forces launched the massive Tet Offensive. Although the assault failed to obtain its military objectives, support for the war in the United States continued to decline.
The My Lai Massacre occurred in the wake of the Tet Offensive. On March 16, 1968, American troops from Charlie Company slaughtered hundreds of unarmed and innocent South Vietnamese citizens—including women and children. Officer Hugh Thompson, a helicopter pilot, witnessed part of the massacre and saved several civilians. He reported what he saw, but the follow-up investigation was cursory and dismissed his allegations. Another soldier, Ron Ridenhour, heard rumors of the massacre and began to collect evidence, mainly eyewitness testimonies. A little over a year after the massacre, he sent his findings to thirty Washington power brokers, including President Richard Nixon. His informal investigation prompted the Army's formal one, during which the testimony from Herbert L. Carter was collected. The Army decided to charge Lieutenant William Calley with six counts of premeditated murder. During Calley's trial in late 1970 and early 1971, both Robert Maples and Dennis Conti gave testimony as witnesses for the prosecution.
Out of the fourteen men court-martialed for their participation in the killings, Lieutenant Calley was the only one convicted. He was sentenced to life, but after a national backlash at his conviction, he ended up serving only four months. There were many reasons why Americans protested his conviction; among the most prominent was the thought that he was being used as a scapegoat for the crimes of many. Although the backlash illustrated the complexity of American public opinion, the aftermath of the My Lai Massacre brought the harsh realities and brutal violence of war to American living rooms like no other event during the Vietnam War and ultimately diminished support for the war.
Author Biography
In these testimonies, several people appear in different roles. Herbert L. Carter, Robert Maples, and Dennis Conti were GI's on the ground who witnessed the My Lai Massacre. Carter served as a ‘tunnel rat,’ a position specializing in subterranean search-and-destroy missions. Maples and Conti were a machine gunner and grenadier, respectively. Aubrey Daniels led the prosecution for the US government against William Calley, securing the only conviction in the proceedings. After President Richard Nixon reduced Calley's sentence, Daniels sent a letter to Nixon protesting this decision. George Latimer led Calley's defense team, which included, among others, Richard Kay.
Document Analysis
This document is made up of three different testimonies, all transcripts of oral exchanges. They come in two types: The first constitutes general testimony Herbert L. Carter gave to investigators in an interview. The other two are court transcripts from the direct and cross examination of Robert Maples and Dennis Conti. This difference in type of testimony accounts for variations in structure and content. In the latter two, the lawyers speak as interlocutors, and their motives can be discerned from their statements.
Carter's testimony stands apart from the other two in structure and content. It includes no interlocutors, but rather a continuous summary of the actions Carter had witnessed. In the latter two testimonies, the direct examination by Aubrey Daniels steers the two witnesses to a similar summary of events, but are not as long or as detailed as that of Carter. Although some themes extend across all three testimonies (see “essential themes” below), the differences are significant. For example, Carter repeatedly calls the killings “murder.” He establishes his perspective with his frequent use of that word. The word does not appear in the two formal court testimonies, where its use would likely be more limited.
In the latter two documents, the lawyers' motives can be discerned from their statements. Both Maples and Conti are witnesses for the prosecution. Daniels' aims to guide his witnesses into a descriptive account of the events that both incriminates Calley and attempts to depict the brutality of that day. The defense team attempts to discredit the two witnesses in different ways. George Latimer accuses Maples of changing his testimony: “Well, you've changed your testimony, haven't you? Didn't you tell the Peers committee in January, 1970 that you never saw Calley pushing people into that hole?” Maples counters Latimer's assertion with another detail that he did not include in his former testimony, arguing that “you forget things then you remember.”
On the other hand, the defense attempts to discredit Conti by smearing his character. By his fourth question, Richard Kay demonstrates an aggression that is palpable: “Isn't it a fact that you were taking penicillin for venereal disease?” The question is not really about Conti's conditions or about medical treatments that might prevent him from being a capable witness; rather, it is intended to smear his character and reveal libertine sexual behavior. Though Conti assents to this loaded question, he refuses two later accusations. Kay accuses him of being a “constant marijuana smoker” and a rapist. Both accusations are intended to blacken Conti's character, and the latter provides a motive for Conti to resent Calley. According to Kay's vivid questioning, Calley “stopped [Conti] from performing a perverse, unnatural sex act at My Lai,” and Conti therefore resented Calley.
One of the defense's main arguments was that Calley simply followed orders. This should be considered in light of the fact that each of these three witnesses refused orders to some degree. Many participants in the massacre did not testify out of fear of incriminating themselves; therefore, it should come as no surprise that the ones who did testify were those more resistant to the killings. Only Carter's testimony includes no sign of his refusal, but later in the sequence of events he shot himself in the foot (literally) in order to be removed from the situation. His account of events should be considered in light of this indirect refusal to participate in the events. The other two testimonies show direct evidence of the witnesses' refusals. In direct examination, Maples bluntly states “I refused.” Conti first establishes his separation from Calley by explaining how he misunderstood Calley's order to “take care of these people.” Later in his testimony, he cites his weapon, a grenade launcher, as a reason to watch the tree line instead of firing into innocent civilians. However, this plan falters when some civilians escape toward the tree line and Calley orders Conti to kill them. He hesitates but no longer refuses.
Bibliography and Additional Reading
Allison, William Thomas. My Lai: An American Atrocity in the Vietnam War. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins UP, 2012. Print.
Bilton, Michael & Kevin Sim. Four Hours in My Lai. New York: Penguin, 2003. Print.
Hersh, Seymour M. Cover-Up. New York: Random House, 1972. Print.
‗‗‗‗‗‗‗‗‗‗‗. My Lai 4: A Report on the Massacre and Its Aftermath. New York: Random House, 1970. Print.