What do you think?
Rate this book
My Lai: A Brief History with Documents
Combining unpublished testimony with a collection of eyewitness accounts and reports from investigators, My Lai chronicles this disturbing event from the Vietnam War which challenged students' notions of American virtue during that time.
222 pages, Paperback
First published January 1, 1998
11 people are currently reading
219 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 17 of 17 reviews
July 20, 2022
In their book, James S. Olson and Randy W. Roberts attempt to introduce readers to the My Lai massacre as concisely as possible, but their work suffers from superficial analysis here and there.
The authors begin with a summary of the Vietnam conflict up to March of 1968, when the atrocities in Pinkville happened. In their effort to cram many significant events in one brief chapter, they commit their first fallacy. They narrate: "As World War II came to a close, President Franklin D. Roosevelt actually contemplated liberating Vietnam from French control." This oversimplifies the complex post-war relationship between the American, French and British governments and Roosevelt's motivations and projects an image of Franklin Delano Roosevelt as a liberator of oppressed peoples. The American President and Charles de Gaulle had no love lost between them, so one of the main reasons for Roosevelt's decision to champion anti-colonialism in Vietnam was actually to spite him. Had Roosevelt embraced the anti-colonial cause? He might have, although he risked significantly souring his relationship with Britain. Churchill was not at all happy about Roosevelt's attempts to pressure the French into giving up on their colonial possession because he feared Roosevelt would then try to force Britain to free its colonies. Roosevelt was foremost a shrewd politician who pursued his own interests. A good relationship with Great Britain was more important to him than the happiness of a Third World nation. The authors' statement is not incorrect, but it does not tell the whole story, and this might mislead some readers.
In the same chapter, the authors use the adjectives "corrupt" and "anti-Buddhist" to describe South Vietnam's Prime Minister Ngo Dinh Diem. I would not discuss the corrupt part here because whether Diem was an American puppet is still a subject of debate among Vietnam scholars. However, "anti-Buddhist" is not what Diem was. The violent Buddhist Crisis of 1963 has led many historians to the incorrect conclusion that the Prime Minister oppressed the South Vietnamese Buddhists. In reality, though, the Buddhist protests were motivated by politics, not religion. Buddhist monks and nuns were treated surprisingly well in North Vietnam, which probably gained Ho Chi Minh supporters in the South Vietnamese pagodas because, as evidence from captured Communist documents demonstrates, the leaders of the Buddhist protests were Communist agents who were sheltered in the pagodas, the protests' headquarters. The protests were accompanied with multiple provocations, which further helped Diem connect the dots and see that the Buddhist Crisis had little to do with religion and everything to do with toppling his regime. This is why he stifled the protests. However, prior to the outbreak of the protests, he had not in any way oppressed the Buddhists in the country, who comprised roughly half of South Vietnam's population. On the contrary, he was praised for his efforts to revive Buddhist traditions that had been repressed by the French colonialists. I would not call Diem anti-Buddhist. He was anti-Communist.
I also disagree with the authors' characterization of Captain Ernest Medina. They juxtapose him to Second Lieutenant Calley and assert that the latter "was as incompetent as Medina was competent." However, Medina's behavior as Charlie Company's commander does not cast him in such a flattering light. Although Medina allegedly earned his nickname, Mad Dog, because he gave anyone who made a mistake an earful of abuse, I can think of another reason for his subordinates' comparing him to a mad dog. The authors agree with the statement of Michael Bilton and Kevin Sim that "Charlie Company was very average." This again is not the whole story. The Tet Offensive was especially traumatic for Charlie's men – they lost nearly half of the company. Prior to My Lai, they also lost a beloved platoon leader. Both experiences resulted in an abrupt degradation of discipline among them and increased bitterness and aggression. From an average seasoned unit, Charlie Company turned into a rowdy bunch of men, who directed their anger at the Vietnamese. Instead of trying to reign in his men, Medina encouraged their unruliness. Furthermore, as testimonies of Charlie Company members demonstrate, before the My Lai operation, he delivered a motivation speech to them that essentially urged them to murder whomever they saw. These are dangerous words to tell men who are already angry and desiring revenge for their comrades. This is not the behavior of a competent commander. It is strange to me that the authors call him competent and then, later in the narrative, they mention that by March 1968, "the mood of Charlie Company was decidedly ugly" and that Medina provided the "moral yardstick" that made everyone else degrade to having no respect for the Vietnamese people.
Another misleading statement I noticed was that "Calley himself was responsible for the most horrific incidents. Most soldiers in Charlie Company who encountered civilians did not kill them; instead they herded the Vietnamese into open areas where they could guard them." The authors had probably reached this incorrect conclusion after examining the testimonies of Charlie Company members from Calley's trial. It is important to keep in mind that Charlie's men were trying to escape conviction, so they pinned more on Calley than he was guilty of. This is not to say that the Second Lieutenant was blameless – he ordered and participated in two mass executions in My Lai. However, the men of Charlie Company also murdered many civilians without being ordered by Calley. For instance, as helicopter pilot Hugh Thompson testified, he saw several of them kill a wounded woman he had marked for evacuation and others calmly sit next to the village's irrigation ditch that was already full of dead bodies.
These are the main inaccuracies that I noted. What the authors' work deserves praise for is that they, as the subtitle suggests, have included interesting documents, such as MACV Commander William Westmoreland's testimony before Congress. This allows the reader to analyze the information without reading contributions from the authors that might prove to be misleading.
MY LAI is a study in which I saw several inconsistencies. Olson and Roberts tend to oversimplify things and contradict their own statements. This book is not the most reliable source on the My Lai massacre.
The authors begin with a summary of the Vietnam conflict up to March of 1968, when the atrocities in Pinkville happened. In their effort to cram many significant events in one brief chapter, they commit their first fallacy. They narrate: "As World War II came to a close, President Franklin D. Roosevelt actually contemplated liberating Vietnam from French control." This oversimplifies the complex post-war relationship between the American, French and British governments and Roosevelt's motivations and projects an image of Franklin Delano Roosevelt as a liberator of oppressed peoples. The American President and Charles de Gaulle had no love lost between them, so one of the main reasons for Roosevelt's decision to champion anti-colonialism in Vietnam was actually to spite him. Had Roosevelt embraced the anti-colonial cause? He might have, although he risked significantly souring his relationship with Britain. Churchill was not at all happy about Roosevelt's attempts to pressure the French into giving up on their colonial possession because he feared Roosevelt would then try to force Britain to free its colonies. Roosevelt was foremost a shrewd politician who pursued his own interests. A good relationship with Great Britain was more important to him than the happiness of a Third World nation. The authors' statement is not incorrect, but it does not tell the whole story, and this might mislead some readers.
In the same chapter, the authors use the adjectives "corrupt" and "anti-Buddhist" to describe South Vietnam's Prime Minister Ngo Dinh Diem. I would not discuss the corrupt part here because whether Diem was an American puppet is still a subject of debate among Vietnam scholars. However, "anti-Buddhist" is not what Diem was. The violent Buddhist Crisis of 1963 has led many historians to the incorrect conclusion that the Prime Minister oppressed the South Vietnamese Buddhists. In reality, though, the Buddhist protests were motivated by politics, not religion. Buddhist monks and nuns were treated surprisingly well in North Vietnam, which probably gained Ho Chi Minh supporters in the South Vietnamese pagodas because, as evidence from captured Communist documents demonstrates, the leaders of the Buddhist protests were Communist agents who were sheltered in the pagodas, the protests' headquarters. The protests were accompanied with multiple provocations, which further helped Diem connect the dots and see that the Buddhist Crisis had little to do with religion and everything to do with toppling his regime. This is why he stifled the protests. However, prior to the outbreak of the protests, he had not in any way oppressed the Buddhists in the country, who comprised roughly half of South Vietnam's population. On the contrary, he was praised for his efforts to revive Buddhist traditions that had been repressed by the French colonialists. I would not call Diem anti-Buddhist. He was anti-Communist.
I also disagree with the authors' characterization of Captain Ernest Medina. They juxtapose him to Second Lieutenant Calley and assert that the latter "was as incompetent as Medina was competent." However, Medina's behavior as Charlie Company's commander does not cast him in such a flattering light. Although Medina allegedly earned his nickname, Mad Dog, because he gave anyone who made a mistake an earful of abuse, I can think of another reason for his subordinates' comparing him to a mad dog. The authors agree with the statement of Michael Bilton and Kevin Sim that "Charlie Company was very average." This again is not the whole story. The Tet Offensive was especially traumatic for Charlie's men – they lost nearly half of the company. Prior to My Lai, they also lost a beloved platoon leader. Both experiences resulted in an abrupt degradation of discipline among them and increased bitterness and aggression. From an average seasoned unit, Charlie Company turned into a rowdy bunch of men, who directed their anger at the Vietnamese. Instead of trying to reign in his men, Medina encouraged their unruliness. Furthermore, as testimonies of Charlie Company members demonstrate, before the My Lai operation, he delivered a motivation speech to them that essentially urged them to murder whomever they saw. These are dangerous words to tell men who are already angry and desiring revenge for their comrades. This is not the behavior of a competent commander. It is strange to me that the authors call him competent and then, later in the narrative, they mention that by March 1968, "the mood of Charlie Company was decidedly ugly" and that Medina provided the "moral yardstick" that made everyone else degrade to having no respect for the Vietnamese people.
Another misleading statement I noticed was that "Calley himself was responsible for the most horrific incidents. Most soldiers in Charlie Company who encountered civilians did not kill them; instead they herded the Vietnamese into open areas where they could guard them." The authors had probably reached this incorrect conclusion after examining the testimonies of Charlie Company members from Calley's trial. It is important to keep in mind that Charlie's men were trying to escape conviction, so they pinned more on Calley than he was guilty of. This is not to say that the Second Lieutenant was blameless – he ordered and participated in two mass executions in My Lai. However, the men of Charlie Company also murdered many civilians without being ordered by Calley. For instance, as helicopter pilot Hugh Thompson testified, he saw several of them kill a wounded woman he had marked for evacuation and others calmly sit next to the village's irrigation ditch that was already full of dead bodies.
These are the main inaccuracies that I noted. What the authors' work deserves praise for is that they, as the subtitle suggests, have included interesting documents, such as MACV Commander William Westmoreland's testimony before Congress. This allows the reader to analyze the information without reading contributions from the authors that might prove to be misleading.
MY LAI is a study in which I saw several inconsistencies. Olson and Roberts tend to oversimplify things and contradict their own statements. This book is not the most reliable source on the My Lai massacre.
July 3, 2023
Very informative and harrowing read. This book includes a lot of testimony of those involved with the My Lai massacre as well as newspapers, interrogations, journals and other documents from the time to give the reader a wide scope of information about the event. Including testimony of soldiers complicit in the massacre and victims who survived to tell the story of this tragedy.
March 29, 2021
i had to read this for class so i wasn’t too excited about it at first. Now that i’ve finished it, i can say i am surprised at how much i liked it. It was a very detailed collection of documents detailing the heartbreaking event. Ultimately, everyone should know about the events that took place in My Lai.
September 17, 2024
read this for uni, it's a culmination of primary sources about the my lai massacre, with occasional secondary commentary. structured well to guide the reader to their own conclusions about this tragedy, a crucial event to know about.
February 19, 2022
harrowing stuff, great insights and presentation
November 5, 2025
read for a class but i’m still counting it toward my challenge 😇
September 6, 2017
Lt William Calley was a horribly inept platoon leader. He was also a war crimes criminal and should have been hung for his actions. To be found guilty of killing unarmed men, women and, especially, children and ultimately only serving 3 1/2 years under house arrest for these atrocious actions is justice denied. That said, Calley was also a scapegoat. He was the only individual to be found guilty of this genocidal incident. His company commander, Capt Earnest Medina (who ordered his troops to destroy everything in the village that was "walking, crawling or growing") and all in the chain of command above that contributed to the coverup of the massacre in My Lai (Son My) all bore blame for this mass killing of some 5oo unarmed villagers.
My Lai was certainly not an isolated incident, but for the National Liberation Front Committee of Quang Nai province to proclaim that this "was the most barbaric killing in human history" is ludicrous. I'm presently reading Mark Bowden's account of the Tet offensive of 1968 and the capture of Hue city by the Viet Cong and NVA forces (Hue 1968). Nearly 3000 civilians were executed by their northern "liberators". Many were found with their hands bound behind their backs with single gunshots to their heads. Others were found to have been buried while still alive. Barbaric killings indeed. So innocents died by the hands of both sides during this sad and tragic war. Olson's book covers one such sad atrocity.
My Lai was certainly not an isolated incident, but for the National Liberation Front Committee of Quang Nai province to proclaim that this "was the most barbaric killing in human history" is ludicrous. I'm presently reading Mark Bowden's account of the Tet offensive of 1968 and the capture of Hue city by the Viet Cong and NVA forces (Hue 1968). Nearly 3000 civilians were executed by their northern "liberators". Many were found with their hands bound behind their backs with single gunshots to their heads. Others were found to have been buried while still alive. Barbaric killings indeed. So innocents died by the hands of both sides during this sad and tragic war. Olson's book covers one such sad atrocity.
April 24, 2016
"How can I like a book that filled me with so much rage?" I pondered as I was picking out my rating. And I realized, it's not the content. It's the truth that it presents. I read this for my American History course and even used it to write an essay on the reasons for this tragedy and what its cover up etc. says about the nature of the Vietnam War, in general. I liked that these were primary documents that I was analyzing for the most part; not 2nd hand analysis from historians (though those most definitely have their value and esteemed place, especially for clarifying context). I ended with the sad belief that My Lai was not an isolated event; as the nature of war cannot ever be completely pure and honest (it's my more pacifist side speaking here). Overall, if you wish to learn about My Lai and the Vietnam War, this is a book I recommend.
March 9, 2015
James S. Olson chose great documents and interesting interviews to inform us readers about this atrocity that happened just several decades ago. There were also some pictures that added more emotional content to the book, showing how terrible the massacre was. I enjoyed reading this book and would definitely recommend it to anyone who doesn't want to read to much but still want to get a lot of information out.
Also, a small side note, Olson does a fantastic job with giving the background information and organizing each document in his book.
Also, a small side note, Olson does a fantastic job with giving the background information and organizing each document in his book.
April 24, 2012
The only reason this book did not get 5 stars is because the few pictures that were included had no caption. I looked on the Internet and learned so much more. I was also shocked at how much I found myself disliking Calley, only to discover he was 26. How can someone who has just entered adulthood make such decisions and be held culpable?
April 26, 2010
Excellent for what it's meant for. Full of information, thought provoking at the very least. I, personally, am partial to fiction, however, so while it's factual and a good source for the history essay I read it for, it's not a book I would sit and read for fun.
May 22, 2016
This was a very sad book in my opinion. It talked about Charlie company going into a village and killing nearly five hundred innocent men,women,and children. Thinking they were Viet Cong. I love the information it has but not the outcome. It is a must read book.
December 14, 2008
A must read for every American who needs a clearer picture about what truly went on in Vietnam.
March 20, 2013
Thorough look at a terrible tragedy.
October 23, 2012
Excellent book if a bit lengthy. Students respond to it well and it does a great job at facilitating discussions on My Lai and the broader nature of war and military culture.
Read
April 8, 2016This book was very helpful and informative. Though, in my opinion, the multiple interviews became repetitive and boring.
January 15, 2008
It's deplorable what they did.
Displaying 1 - 17 of 17 reviews