John Phillips
HIS 107-004
Dr. Bogin
Analysis of Primary Documents – My Lai

Document 54: Letter to Military and Political Leaders
1.)	This document is a letter written by Ronald Ridenhour. Ridenhour had served for two years in Vietnam. His pure ideals of combat were not matched by most of his peers, and he watched, disgusted, as American troops shamelessly killed off Vietnamese non-combatants. He soon came to identify the reality of the Vietnam War, and the antics that were so commonly used. Unlike most others in the war, however, Ridenhour did not change his  views, he continued to view the actions and lack of morality in a critical light.
	
2.)	The document is a letter to high ranking officials, including 30 members congressmen, Pentagon Officials and the secretary of defense. The purpose of the letter was to raise awareness of the massacres in My Lai, and to ensure that justice was brought to those who had committed the war crimes. The author built a clear image of what had happened, through a wide range of sources, establishing his credibility with his overwhelming knowledge of facts and people involved. 
	“I do truly believe in the principles, of justice and the equality of every man, however humble, before the law, that form the very backbone that this country is founded on, then we must press forward a widespread and public investigation of this matter with all our combined efforts.”
	
3.)	The author stated that his first course of action would not be to send a letter like this to the press, for the general public. A public spectacle, he decided, would not be as efficient toward his cause as simply informing those who could do anything about it. Ridenhour's target audience for this letter was any high ranking official with both the power, and the ambition to react to the problem stated in the letter. “I have considered sending this to newspapers, magazines and broadcasting companies, but I somehow feel that investigation and action by the Congress of the United States is the appropriate procedure, and as a conscientious citizen I have no desire to further besmirch the image of the American serviceman in the eyes of the world.”
	
4.)	 Ridenhour explains in this letter what had allegedly happened in My Lai, and lists the sources from which he got his information. “One morning in the latter part of March, Task Force Barker moved out from its firebase headed for "Pinkville." Its mission: destroy the trouble spot and all of its inhabitants.” In story form, Ridenhour described the situation to the best of his knowledge. “I asked "Butch" several times if all the people were killed. He said that he thought they were men, women and children. He recalled seeing a small boy, about three or four years old, standing by the trail with a gunshot wound in one arm. The boy was clutching his wounded arm with his other hand, while blood trickled between his fingers. He was staring around himself in shock and disbelief at what he saw. "He just stood there with big eyes staring around like he didn't understand; he didn't believe what was happening. Then the captain's RTO (radio operator) put a burst of 16 (M-16 rifle) fire into him." ” Through specific imagery, on specific accounts from people whom he had talked to, Ridenhour was able to provide a very thorough idea of the atrocities that had occurred in My Lai. He then raises the ides of an attempt to cover up the massacre, by pointing out Capt. Medina's talk with Michael Bernhardt, in which he was told “not to do anything stupid like write my congressman”. Throughout his letter, Ridenhour provided a thorough, and credible account of what happened in My Lai, and raised all the right questions as to what happened, and what should be done about it.
	 
5.)	Ridenhour is very careful in his letter not to make any direct assumptions in his letter, as all of his facts are backed by accounts from those who were there to witness the events. By going through the trouble to write the letter, and raise these questions, Ridenhour must have assumed that there was truth behind the stories, and an investigation was necessary to determine the details.
	 
6.)	The document offers very little insight to the society of the time, as it is purely factual, and sticks to a very fine point. However, one can infer that the massacring of non combatant civilians was not only frowned upon, but was absolutely absurd. American values were quite to the opposite of practices like these, as is reflected by the author's disgust, as well as the intended disgust the author is looking to invoke in the recipients of the letter. America retained a righteous image of “the good guys”, and as such, would never be involved in an incident like the one reported in this letter.
	 
7.)	 This document has a very practical meaning. It is a very factual, straightforward exposé, and its purpose is to create awareness of what had happened in My Lai. Providing this awareness to the right people, Ridenhour believed, would spark the outrage and ambition necessary to begin a thorough investigation, find out what exactly had happened, and act accordingly. This document epitomizes the the theme of the rest of the book. Through direct accounts from primary witnesses, the facts are simply presented, leading the reader to draw their own, obvious conclusion. The following quote summarizes Ridenhour's intentions nicely: “I think that it was Winston Churchill who, once said "A country without a conscience is a country without a soul, and a country without a soul is a country that cannot survive." I feel that I must take some positive action on this matter. I hope that you will launch an investigation immediately and keep me informed of your progress.”

Document 32: Hugh Thompsom Jr. - Testimony to the Peers Commission (1970)
1.)	The document wasn't so much written as recorded. In this document, Thompson's testimony to the Peers Commission is recorded and published. Thompson was one of very few soldiers who openly opposed the My Lai massacre as it was going on.
	 
2.)	The document was published with a compilation of other similar testimonies. Their purpose was to establish a clear account of what really happened in My Lai, through the various documented stories of a large number of people who were present during the time. This document is very practical, and straightforward, and does not convey deeper meaning than meets the eye. 
	 
3.)	It can be assumed that these testimonies were not intended for the press, or for wide public consumption. They were part of the investigation of My Lai, and their purpose was to clarify what exactly happened, and who was involved. The document exists for information purposes, and was published publicly only for those who seek a deeper knowledge of My Lai.
	 
4.)	In this Document, Hugh Thompson describes the My Lai massacre, and his own personal response to the killings. Thompson describes seeing bodies in ditches, and requesting that American soldiers help them. Upon taking off again, it was noted that the civilians were being fired on by the same soldiers who were asked to help them. He then reports asking soldiers to rescue some non combatants who were residing in a bunker. His response was “The only way to get them out is with a hand grenade”. He told him “Just hold your men right there and I'll get those kids out”. Sensing the the children were otherwise in bad hands, Thompson boarded the non combatants into the military helicopters to escort them to safety. This was the first time a gunship was used for such purposes. As his story progresses, friendly hostility is brought into the question. Was the possibility of friendly fire too far fetched? This question is left open in the document.
	 
5.)	Much like the last document, this one is straightforward, and holds no persuasion purposes. The person asking the questions in this interview seems to assume that friendly fire was a legitimate fear of his while he was rescuing the civilians. While the idea is largely denied, a lot of the interrogators questions press toward that idea, even though it was never led to be believed by Thompson in anything he said. This idea was purely an assumption on the part of the interrogator.
	 
6.)	The same values are shown in this document as the document prior to this. The idea of American troops massacring an entire village of non combatants is absurd to the average American. Although many of the attacking troops thought otherwise, the common American value was demonstrated through Thompson's actions as he acted against the majority and took all actions necessary to ensure the safety of the non combatant civilians.

	 
7.)	This document allows the reader to observe the My Lai massacre through the standpoint of somebody who feels so strongly against them. Many soldiers simply went with the flow and did as they were told, even if they objected to what was happening. Thompson's actions took guts that most soldiers did not have. This perspective was one of very few seen in this book, and Thompson's emotional response most closely matched that of the typical American readers.
	
8.)	The two documents are similar in that they portray the do-gooders of My Lai, in what short supply they were. Both Hugh Thompson and Ronald Ridenhour were called the “Heroes of My Lai”. They were able to keep in touch with their moral values, and act on them all the way throughout. In both documents, the “hero” is shown defending the Vietnamese civilians who, in My Lai, truly were the victims. In doing what they knew was right, they were willing to act on their own judgment, free of anything else that was going on around them. Although both reported the incident to higher authorities afterward, Thompson's protest was more actively against the actions in My Lai, and even preventing some deaths from occurring. Ridenhour, who was not at the scene, actively collected information, and distributed it to the correct people to solve the problem. Together, they show American values shining through the darkness that prevailed in Vietnam.