Peter Marouf Jacobsen
Handout
Doing it Ourselves – The Road to
Americanization of the Vietnam Conflict,
1963-1965
The conflict in Vietnam should remain a cautionary tale to this day. The sole lost war for
America in the 20th century, the decisions made regarding the American commitment to South
Vietnam would come to define much of the 1960s. Over 57,000 American soldiers gave their
lives for the goal of preserving the independence of South Vietnam from 1965 – 1973, a nation
which would cease to exist after 1975.
Why did the United States assume responsibility for what some have labeled a civil war far from
its borders, and why did the United States shoulder the majority of the war effort from 1965?
Given the political instability of South Vietnam from late 1963 to 1965, could a stable situation
even have emerged? And how has the experience of Vietnam shaped America’s future?
Peter Marouf Jacobsen
Handout
Suggestions for Additional Reading

Craig, Campbell and Logevall, Fredrik: America’s Cold War – The Politics of Insecurity.
The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press. 2009.

Duiker, William J. Ho Chi Minh – A Life Paperback edition. New York. Hyperion, 2000.

Hess, Gary R. Vietnam: Explaining America’s Lost War Blackwell Publishing Ltd, 2009.

Jacobs, Seth Ngo Dinh Diem, the Impossible Ally in “Light at the End of the Tunnel” ed.
Rotter, Andrew J. Third Edition. Paperback. Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, 2010.

Logevall, Fredrik Choosing War – The Lost Chance for Peace and the Escalation of War
in Vietnam Paperback edition. University of California Press, 2001.

McNamara, Robert S. The Tonkin Gulf Resolution in “Light at the End of the Tunnel” ed.
Rotter, Andrew J. Third Edition. Paperback. Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, 2010.

Preston, Andrew The War Council – McGeorge Bundy, The NSC, and Vietnam
Paperback edition. Harvard University Press, 2010.

Rystad, Goran Images of the Past in “To Reason Why – The Debate about the Causes of
U.S. Involvement in the Vietnam War”. Kimball, Jeffrey. Ed. McGraw-Hill Inc. 1990.

Schulzinger, Robert D. A Time for War – The United States and Vietnam, 1941-1975
Paperback edition. Oxford University Press, 1998.
Eva Schmeidl (Ludwig-Maximilians-University, Munich)
Session 6: Lessons of Vietnam and Military Reform (Prof. Dr. Mark Meigs)
The Controversies around the Vietnam Veterans Memorial in Washington D.C.
“The national Vietnam Veterans Memorial may well have generated more controversy than any work
of architecture in recent history.”1
…a few things to keep in mind
Besides being deeply controversial, morally questionable and highly unpopular, the Vietnam War was a war
that had been lost. Many Vietnam Veterans who returned to the US were not welcomed and celebrated as
heroes – instead they were confronted with resentment and rejection or completely ignored by a society that
already wanted to forget the war before it was even over.
Vietnam Veterans Memorial
In March 1979 Vietnam veteran Jan Scruggs had the idea of building a memorial for all the Vietnam
veterans to help them reclaim a modicum of recognition and social standing. One month later he
initiated the Vietnam Veterans Memorial Fund (VVMF).
The Design: the difficult task of how to create a memorial that celebrates the virtues of the
individual veteran without reference to his cause
In October 1980 a national design competition was announced by the VVMF. The jury and the
contestants were given only a few simple instructions: the design should (1) be reflective and
contemplative in character; (2) harmonize with its surroundings; (3) contain the names of those who
had died in the conflict or who were still missing and (4) make no political statement about the war.2
The Winning Design: “The Wall”
On May 1st, 1981, the jury presented the winning design. They
unanimously picked the proposal that had impressed them with its
simplicity. It turned out to be by Maya Ying Lin, a 22-year-old
architecture student at Yale University. Her design consists of panels of
black, highly reflective granite that shape a large “V” at a 125-degree
angle. The panels have been built into the earth’s surface so that the
http://www.visitingdc.com/memorial/vi
etnam-memorial-picture.htm
visitor walks downhill toward the apex. The power of the design lies in
the overwhelming presence of individual names which are inscribed in the wall in chronological order
of their death, showing the war as a series of individual human sacrifices.
The Controversies: a reflection of the impossibility of finding a single design that can represent
the Vietnam War for all Americans
(1) The Designer Controversy: Maya Ying Lin
Many people were offended that a Chinese American student was the architect of a major American
memorial of a war fought in Indochina.
(2) The Design Controversy: “A Black Gash of Shame”3
Many people protested that Lin’s design was too abstract, that it looked like a big “black scar” and
that it was too different from other war memorials. It was not considered celebratory and heroic, but
nonpatriotic and feminine. Therefore many critics demanded additions to Lin’s design which should
include a more heroic, life-like depiction of a soldier and a flag. A compromise was reached in
agreement that a statue and a flag will be added to the Lin design. On November 13th, 1982 the
official dedication ceremony of the Vietnam Veterans Memorial took place.
1
Nicholas J. Capasso, “Vietnam Veterans Memorial." In The Critical Edge: Controversy In Recent American Architecture edited by Tod Marder (Cambridge: MIT
Press, 1985), 188-202.
2
Cf. Vietnam Veterans Memorial Fund, “Design,” Vietnam Veterans Memorial Fund. http://www.vvmf.org/Design (accessed September 2, 2011).
3
Tom, Carhart, “Insulting Vietnam Vets,” New York Times, October 24, 1981.
1
1983 Addition of the flagpole
The flag was added as a symbol of patriotism. At the base of the flagpole are the seals of the five
branches of military service, with the following inscription: “This flag represents the service rendered
to our country by the veterans of the Vietnam War. The flag affirms the principles of freedom for
which they fought and their pride in having served under difficult circumstances.”4
1984 Addition of the The Three Servicemen statue by Frederick Hart
The Three Servicemen statue was added to draw a more heroic picture of the
soldiers. Interpretations of this work vary widely. Some say the three strong,
soldiers have the "thousand yard stare" of combat soldiers. Others say the troops
are on patrol and begin looking for their own names as they come upon the
Memorial.
http://www.visitingdc.com/mem
orial/vietnam-memorialphoto.htm
(3) The Gender Controversy: the representation of female veterans
Former Army nurse and Vietnam veteran Diane Carlson Evans initiated the addition of the Vietnam
Women’s Memorial to the Vietnam Veterans Memorial to honor the thousands of
women who volunteered to serve in Vietnam.
1993 Addition of the Vietnam Women’s Memorial statue by Glenna Goodacre
The statue was added to pay tribute to the female veterans and it is the first
national memorial that honors the women's patriotic service. It shows four figures:
an injured male soldier, a white nurse, an African American women comforting the
nurse and looking to the sky and a third woman kneeling, holding an empty helmet.
http://www.visitingdc.com/m
emorial/vietnamwomen%27s-memorial.htm
(4) The Name Controversy: how to honor veterans who died after their return to the US due to
their service
Many Vietnam Veterans demanded that their comrades who suffered a premature death (Agent
Orange induced illnesses, post- traumatic stress disorder,…) directly related to their service in
Vietnam should also be remembered.
2004 Addition of the “In Memory Plaque”
Added to honor those Vietnam veterans whose names are not eligible for placement on the
Memorial. Inscription: "In memory of the men and women who served in the Vietnam War and later
died as a result of their service. We honor and remember their sacrifice."5
Discussion Questions
1) Despite the numerous controversies, the Vietnam Veterans Memorial belongs to the most
popular memorials in the US. From the very beginning people visiting the memorial left
behind all kind of gifts (medals, photos, letters,…). Why do you think the memorial evokes
such a response? What makes it so special?
2) Do you think that the controversies around the Vietnam Veterans Memorial had an impact
on the design and understanding of future memorials?
Bibliography
Doss, Erika. Memorial Mania-Public Feeling in America. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2010.
Capasso, Nicholas J..“Vietnam Veterans Memorial." In The Critical Edge: Controversy In Recent American Architecture edited by Tod
Marder, 188-202. Cambridge: MIT Press, 1985.
Hass, Kristin Ann. Carried To the Wall-American Memory and the Vietnam Veterans Memorial. Berkeley: University of California Press,
1998.
Höbling, Walter, Rieser Klaus and Susanne Rieser (eds.). US Icons and Iconicity. Wien: LIT Verlag GmbH, 2006.
Parr, Adrian. Deleuze and Memorial Culture-Desire, Singular Memory and the Politics of Trauma. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press,
2008.
Scruggs, Jan C. and Joel L. Swerdlow. The Vietnam Veterans Memorial: To Heal a Nation. New York: Harper & Row Publishers, 1985.
Sturken, Marita. “The Wall, the Screen, and the Image: The Vietnam Veterans Memorial.” Representations, No. 35 (1991), 118-242.
Wagner-Pacifici, Robin. “The Vietnam Veterans Memorial: Commemorating a Difficult Past.” American Journal of Sociology, Vol. 97
(1991), 376-420.
4
Cf. Vietnam Veterans Memorial Fund, “The Three Servicemen Statue,” Vietnam Veterans Memorial Fund. http://www.vvmf.org/ThreeServicemen (accessed
September 2, 2011).
5
Cf. Vietnam Veterans Memorial Fund, “In Memory Plaque,” Vietnam Veterans Memorial Fund. http://www.vvmf.org/InMemoryPlaque (accessed September
2, 2011).
2
Session 6
Lessons of Vietnam and Military Reform
Jana Toppe (FU Berlin)
Media Coverage of the My Lai Massacre
On March 16, 1968, the men of Charlie Company entered the village of My Lai under the
command of First Lieutenant William L. Calley with the objective to “search and destroy” the
North Vietnamese troops believed to reside there. The village was instead populated by
unarmed South Vietnamese civilians, mostly women and children, who were then massacred
by Charlie Company. The incident was kept under wraps by the military for a year until an
independent investigative journalist - Seymour M. Hersh - uncovered the story in 1969.
Once surfaced, Newsweek, Time, and Life magazines featured the story, including the
gruesome images of slaughtered villagers. News coverage of My Lai was cautious enough,
mainly focusing on the trial of Lieutenant Calley rather than the atrocities performed by
American soldiers. Portrayal of the latter remained relatively positive (changing, however,
from the image of the reluctant soldier fighting to survive to that of the fierce warrior eager to
enter combat), and often, reports on My Lai pointed out that events such as this were a regular
on “the other side”, thereby downplaying the extremity.
“It took twenty months for the American public to learn what Charlie
Company had done in a few hours at My Lai 4. […] GIs talk, and brag; the
250 men in the other two companies of Task Force Barker learned within
days about what had happened in My Lai 4.” – Seymour M. Hersh, My Lai
4, p. 103
Timeline of My Lai news coverage
Sept. 5, 1969: The first public hint of the My Lai massacre is given in an unspecific press
release by the public information office on Ft. Benning regarding charges against Lt. Calley
Sept. 10: NBC’s The Huntley-Brinkley Report informs that Calley is accused of
“premeditated murder of a number of South Vietnamese civilians”. After this, the news media
remain silent for several weeks.
March/April: Ex-GI Ronald Ridenhour sends letters with information he gathered in South
Vietnam on the massacre to Congress and President Nixon. Investigation ensues.
June: Lt. Calley is pulled from Vietnam with special orders to report to Washington.
Oct. 13: Ridenhour receives a letter from the Army, informing him that the hearing on
Calley’s murder chargers would proceed that month, and urging him to keep quiet: “It is not
appropriate to report details of the allegations to news media. Your continued cooperation in
this matter is acknowledged.”
Journalists hardly respond to Ridenhour’s attempts to publish his information.
Oct. 22: A source tips off independent investigator Seymour M. Hersh, who begins to
investigate and interviews Calley in November.
Nov. 13: Over 30 newspapers, among them the nation’s leading, run Hersh’s report.
Session 6
Lessons of Vietnam and Military Reform
Jana Toppe (FU Berlin)
Nov. 17: A report from Song My village with eyewitness accounts by The New York Times’
reporter Henry Kamm is published on the paper’s front page.
Nov. 18: Ex-GI Ron Haeberle offers photographs of the massacre to Cleveland Plain Dealer
reporter Joseph Eszterhas, who seeks confirmation from the Pentagon. Captain Aubrey
Daniels of Fort Benning phones Haeberle to pressure him into withholding the images, an
open admission of the pictures’ authenticity.
Nov. 20: The Cleveland Plain Dealer publishes an interview with Ron Haeberle along with
photographs of massacred men, women, and children.
Hersh’s interviews (eyewitness accounts) with Michael Terry and Michael Bernhardt of
Charlie Company are made available.
Nov. 25: The Army formally acknowledges the charges brought against Calley – premeditated
murder of 109 civilians.
Vietnam veteran Paul Meadlo is interviewed on the CBS nightly news with Walter Cronkite.
This eyewitness account changed the media treatment of the massacre, sparked more
investigation and editorial comments.
Source: Cleveland Plain Dealer, 20 Nov. 1969
References and further reading
Belknap, Michal R. The Vietnam War on Trial. The My Lai Massacre and the Court-Martial
of Lieutenant Calley. Lawrence, KS: University Press of Kansas 2002.
French, Peter A. Individual and Collective Responsibility. Massacre at My Lai. Cambridge,
MA: Schenkman 1972.
Hallin, Daniel C. The “Uncensored War”. The Media and Vietnam. Oxford: Oxford
University Press 1986.
---. We Keep America on Top of the World. Television Journalism and the Public Sphere.
New York: Routledge 1994.
Hersh, Seymour M. Cover-Up. New York: Random House 1972.
---. My Lai 4. A Report on the Massacre and its Aftermath. New York:
Random House 1970.
Kinnard, Douglas. The War Managers. Hanover, NH: University Press of New England
1977.
Session 6: Lessons of Vietnam and Military Reform
Johannes Martin Nyborg
University of Copenhagen (Denmark)
“Juxtaposing Hearts and Minds”
“[…] the ultimate victory will depend on the hearts and
minds of the people who actually live over there.” – Lyndon
B. Johnson, Hearts and Minds (1974)
In his documentary “Hearts and Minds” (1974) Peter Davis
examines both American and Vietnamese attitudes towards
the Vietnam War as well as how American culture facilitated
the onslaught. The documentary is not narrated, but images,
film clips and interviews of American soldiers, politicians,
policy makers as well as Vietnamese nationals are juxtaposed
in a way that brings out stark and poignant contrasts. “Hearts
and Minds” focuses on the Vietnamese perspective of the war
as well as the American, rather than just American.
Throughout the documentary Peter Davis portrays American culture as pseudo-violent and too
willing too accept and surrender to authority without question. This coupled with the opinions of
several American soldiers that the Vietnamese are sub-human lead to atrocious acts.
Clips of American bomber pilots describing their missions as feats of technical skill are juxtaposed
with images of decimated Vietnamese villages underlining how far removed the American soldiers
could be from the practical actions of war they performed. Especially towards the end of the
documentary, though, there are clips of American soldiers, hitting, kicking, slapping Vietnamese
prisoners as well as holding a prisoner’s face under water.
“As long as there is rice to eat we will resist. If we run out of
rice we will plough the fields and fight again.”- Mui Duc
Giang, Saigon, Hearts and Minds (1974)
The Vietnamese resistance to American presence is in several
instances linked to the idea of America’s own struggle for
independence, though here Americans are the oppressive and
invasive force. Thus the documentary infers that American
actions in Vietnam are hypocritical when compared to the stated
political intentions.
Several Vietnamese nationals give voice to the growing resentment of the people to the presence
and actions of the Americans. Villagers, carpenters, editors of magazines, monks and many others
speak out against the unnecessary brutality and bombardments carried out by the Americans.
Through them the documentary portrays how the “hearts and minds” of the Vietnamese people are
lost to the United States.
The anti-war movement gains traction as many of the most infamous images and clips from the war
reach American audiences. American men burn draft cards and veterans returning home throw
away their medals in protest of the actions in which they earned them.
“The history of conflict among nations does not record another
such lengthy and consistent chronicle of error as we have shown in
Vietnam.” – Senator Robert Kennedy, Hearts and Minds (1974)
The documentary explores the dichotomy of American culture and
American conflict and how these have greatly affected the Vietnam
as indeed America as well. The documentary is highly subjective in
both its form and function with its emphasis on American culture as
a whole without going into detail with specific strategies, political or
military. Nonetheless the documentary played a significant role in
portraying the Vietnam War with its focus on the Vietnamese
perspective.
Bibliography and suggestions for material:
Linda Dittmar and Gene Michaud (Editors), From Hanoi to Hollywood – The Vietnam War in
American Film, Rutgers University Press (1990)
Robert J. McMahon, Major Problems in the History of the Vietnam War, Third Edition, Houghton
Mifflin Company, (2003)
William F. Steirer, Jr, Review: Hearts and Minds, The History Teacher, Vol. 9, No. 4 (Aug., 1976),
pp. 611-665, found on JSTOR
Rabbi Michael Lerner, Closed Hearts, Closed Minds, Mississippi Review, Vol. 32, No. 3 (Fall,
2004), pp. 40-59, found on JSTOR
Peter Davis, Hearts and Minds
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-8502739857306070849