The way that the my lai massacre ended during the vietnam war is an example of what?
|
In the My Lai Massacre, a company of American ground troops killed between 347 and 504 unarmed Vietnamese civilians in a village suspected of harboring Communist guerrillas (the VC). After the massacre became public knowledge, Captain Ernest Medina denied giving orders to kill women and children. But some platoon leaders testified (without plea bargains, as far as I can tell) that Medina had explicitly ordered them to kill every living thing in the village. Show In Hiroshima, the American crew of the Enola Gay killed 90,000 to 166,000 people in a mid-size Japanese city with an atomic bomb. According to the best estimate I could find, about 12,000 of the dead were Japanese soldiers. The rest were unarmed civilians. No one disputes that the Enola Gay’s crew was following orders. The My Lai Massacre is now almost universally considered a heinous war crime. The Hiroshima bombing, in contrast, enjoys bipartisan admiration. What moral distinctions might you draw between the two? 1. You could say that Hiroshima contained enemy soldiers, and My Lai didn’t. But as far as I can tell, no one disputes that My Lai harbored the VC. And even if some villagers did harbor the VC, we would still regard mass killing of unarmed civilians a war crime. 2. You could say that Hiroshima’s civilians shared collective guilt for Japan’s crimes, but the My Lai civilians didn’t share collective guilt for the VC’s crimes. But if villagers did indeed harbor the VC, why would their collective guilt be any less than that of the Japanese? 3. You could say that the ratio of soldiers to civilians killed was much higher in Hiroshima than My Lai. Maybe; it’s hard to say. But the Hiroshima ratio was only 7-13%. Would the presence of 347*7% = 24 VCs among My Lai’s dead meant that American actions were not a war crime? 4. You could say that the Americans couldn’t separately target soldiers in Hiroshima, but they could separately target soldiers in My Lai. But that’s false. Americans had a wide variety of weapons and tactics to use against the Japanese; many would have targeted soldiers but spared civilians. Furthermore, as American soldiers in Vietnam often complained, when you’re fighting guerrillas it’s extremely difficult to tell soldiers and civilians apart. Even a kid can fire a gun or plant a mine. The perpetrators of the My Lai Massacre could truthfully insist that killing a lot of civilians was the only way to make sure they killed their enemy soldiers. 5. You could say that the Japanese started the war, and the VC didn’t. But in what sense did the VC not start the Vietnam War? It’s not like the South Vietnamese government suddenly sneak attacked a peaceful guerrilla army wandering the countryside. 6. You could say that the American soldiers in Hiroshima were just following orders, while the American soldiers in My Lai weren’t. But the evidence strongly suggests that the soldiers in My Lai were following orders. More importantly, if the soldiers in My Lai were following orders, we would consider their commander a war criminal. By that logic, the commander of the Enola Gay would be a war criminal, too. 7. You could say that Hiroshima successfully ended the war and saved lives, and My Lai plainly failed to do so. But My Lai was much smaller than Hiroshima. If My Lai tactics were applied on a vast scale – say 300 villages to make the body count comparable to Hiroshima’s – maybe they too could have ended the war and saved lives.* In any case, by this logic, Hiroshima would have been a massive war crime if it failed to make the Japanese surrender. I propose that the real reason for the distinction is simply this: 8. The soldiers in My Lai murdered people they could see face-to-face. The crew of the Enola Gay dropped a bomb from a high distance and flew away. Needless to say, if the true explanation is (8), either Hiroshima was a war crime, or My Lai wasn’t. Well, I suppose you could say that long-distance murder isn’t really murder. Any crucial moral distinctions between My Lai and Hiroshima I’ve missed? If so, please tell me. * After South Vietnam fell, Communists killed millions in Indochina. Most were in Cambodia under the Khmer Rouge, but if North Vietnam had been defeated, Cambodia probably would have remained non-Communist. HT: Question inspired by Michael Huemer, my favorite living philosopher. Actually, after reading the draft of his latest book, Freedom and Authority, Huemer is my favorite philosopher of all time. Monthly Plan
Yearly Plan
Log in through your institution Purchase a PDFPurchase this article for $19.00 USD. How does it work?
journal article An American Atrocity: The My Lai Massacre Concretized in a Victim's FaceThe Journal of American History Vol. 94, No. 1 (Jun., 2007) , pp. 154-162 (9 pages) Published By: Oxford University Press https://doi.org/10.2307/25094784 https://www.jstor.org/stable/25094784
Read and download Log in through your school or library Alternate access options For independent researchers Subscribe to JPASS Unlimited reading + 10 downloads Purchase article $19.00 - Download now and later Journal Information In 1964 the Mississippi Valley Historical Review, published by the Organization of American Historians, became The Journal of American History. The change in title reflected not only an awareness of a growing national membership in the Association, but recognized a decided shift in contributor emphasis from regional to nationally-oriented history. The Journal of American History remains the leading scholarly publication and journal of record in the field of American history and is well known as the major resource for the study, investigation, and teaching of our country's heritage. Published quarterly in March, June, September and December, the Journal continues its distinguished career by publishing prize-winning and widely reprinted articles on American history. Each volume contains interpretive essays on all aspects of American history, plus reviews of books, films, movies, television programs, museum exhibits and resource guides, as well as microform, oral history, archive and manuscript collections, bibliographies of scholarship contained in recent scholarly periodicals and dissertations. Publisher Information Oxford University Press is a department of the University of Oxford. It furthers the University's objective of excellence in research, scholarship, and education by publishing worldwide. OUP is the world's largest university press with the widest global presence. It currently publishes more than 6,000 new publications a year, has offices in around fifty countries, and employs more than 5,500 people worldwide. It has become familiar to millions through a diverse publishing program that includes scholarly works in all academic disciplines, bibles, music, school and college textbooks, business books, dictionaries and reference books, and academic journals. Rights & Usage This item is part of a JSTOR Collection. How did the massacre at My Lai end?The My Lai massacre reportedly ended only after Warrant Officer Hugh Thompson, an Army helicopter pilot on a reconnaissance mission, landed his aircraft between the soldiers and the retreating villagers and threatened to open fire if they continued their attacks.
Why was the My Lai massacre a turning point?The publicity surrounding the My Lai massacre proved to be an important turning point in American public opinion. It illustrated the deterioration that was taking place in the behaviour of the US troops and undermined the moral argument about the need to save Vietnam from the "evils of communism".
When did the My Lai massacre end?16 March 1968
What was one effect of the My Lai massacre quizlet?What effect did the massacre have on America? People began to turn against the war because they had previously believed that their country was the good country which was helping but this incident revealed that perhaps their men were not the good people in this war.
|
