Opposition to War

The draft made the war a personal threat to young men and their families. Students provided networks through which opposition could become organised protest. Television and newspaper reporting brought the violence of the war to a much wider audience. My Lai and Kent State then intensified doubts about how the military and government used their power.

The draft made the war personal

The draft was compulsory recruitment into the armed forces. A young man could be required to serve even if he disagreed with the war. Refusing to report for military service was a criminal offence, so those selected could face a choice between military service and punishment.

This meant that Vietnam was not simply a distant conflict. Families feared that sons and brothers would be sent to fight and might be killed. Opposition to the war therefore overlapped with opposition to being forced to take part in it.

The draft also appeared unfair. Wealthier men had greater opportunities to avoid service through education or medical exemptions, while poorer men had fewer ways to escape recruitment. Critics argued that the burdens of the war fell disproportionately on ordinary working people. A randomised draft lottery was introduced in 1969, but compulsory service remained a focus of resentment.

Some men resisted openly by burning their draft cards, turning individual refusal into a public political protest. Others went into hiding or left the country; around 30,000 fled to Canada during the war. Such actions showed how opposition could move beyond disagreement into resistance to government policy.

Students turned opposition into a movement

The post-war baby boom meant that a large generation of young Americans reached adulthood during the Vietnam War. The number of students rose from about six million in 1965 to 8.5 million in 1970. Universities brought large numbers of young people together, making it easier to share ideas and organise demonstrations.

Some young people rejected their parents’ assumptions about authority and patriotism. The hippy slogan ‘make love, not war’ expressed a preference for peace rather than military conflict. However, not every student shared the same beliefs: fear of the draft, objections to civilian suffering and distrust of government could all bring people into the anti-war movement.

University campuses consequently became important centres of protest. Students gave opposition a visible, organised presence, rather than leaving it as a collection of private opinions. Their demonstrations also attracted media attention, helping the movement reach people beyond the universities.

Television and the media weakened trust

By the mid-1960s, television ownership was widespread and improved cameras allowed reporters to film close to the fighting. News coverage brought battlefield violence and suffering into American homes. Viewers could see the human consequences of a war that politicians often described in terms of military progress.

This mattered in two connected ways. First, images of death and destruction encouraged moral objections to the war. Secondly, coverage could contradict reassuring statements by generals and politicians. If officials claimed that the war was going well while viewers saw continued fighting and casualties, people could question whether those officials were telling the truth.

This loss of trust is often described as a credibility gap. Television did not automatically turn every viewer against the war, but it gave people evidence with which to challenge official claims. Newspaper investigations and published photographs also played an important role, particularly in exposing My Lai.

My Lai: a massacre and its exposure

In March 1968, US troops on a search-and-destroy mission at My Lai in South Vietnam killed hundreds of civilians, including women, children and babies. Estimates vary: at least 347 people were killed, with some estimates reaching about 500. Some women were raped before being murdered.

The army initially presented the operation as a success, claiming that 128 Vietcong fighters had been killed. This account concealed the killing of civilians and became central to later accusations of a cover-up.

The massacre became public knowledge in 1969. In March, an army whistleblower wrote to government officials about what he had heard, helping trigger an investigation. Reporting and the publication of photographs then exposed the killings to a wider audience.

The revelations damaged the reputation of the US military. Images of dead children made the suffering of Vietnamese civilians impossible to dismiss as an abstract cost of war. Some protesters called American soldiers ‘baby killers’. The contrast between the army’s original claim of success and the reality of the massacre also deepened distrust of the authorities.

Lieutenant Calley’s trial and public reaction

Lieutenant William Calley, who had led troops involved in the killings, faced trial in 1970–71. He argued that he had been following orders. In 1971, he was found guilty of murdering 22 civilians and sentenced to life imprisonment.

His punishment was subsequently reduced, and he spent about three years under house arrest rather than serving life in prison. For critics of the war, this outcome intensified anger: the scale of the killings seemed far greater than the punishment imposed.

My Lai therefore strengthened opposition for more than one reason. The massacre raised moral questions about American conduct in Vietnam; the initial concealment weakened trust in official accounts; and the handling of Calley’s punishment raised doubts about accountability.

Kent State: the conflict reached an American campus

At Kent State University in Ohio, existing anti-war protests escalated following the US invasion of Cambodia in 1970. Protesters saw the expansion of fighting as a reason to challenge President Richard Nixon’s policy. His description of student protesters as ‘bums’ further inflamed relations.

On 2 May, the campus military officer-training building was burned down during the unrest. The National Guard was deployed. On 4 May, around 3,000 people gathered for a demonstration on the university campus.

Guardsmen ordered demonstrators to disperse and used tear gas. Some protesters threw rocks and tear-gas canisters back at the troops. The National Guard then opened fire, killing four students and injuring nine. Two of those killed had been passing by rather than taking part in the protest.

The shootings caused outrage in America and attracted international attention. They showed that the confrontation over Vietnam could result in deaths at home as well as abroad. The deaths of white, middle-class students also brought the crisis sharply into focus for many white, middle-class families who might previously have felt removed from campus protest.

Around two million students went on strike, and more than 400 colleges closed. Kent State broadened support for the anti-war movement and intensified criticism of Nixon’s treatment of protesters.

Why these causes reinforced one another

The growth of opposition was not the result of one event alone. The draft created personal grievances; campuses helped people organise; and the media spread information about both the war and protests against it.

My Lai strengthened the argument that the war involved unacceptable violence and official dishonesty. Kent State intensified fears about the government’s response to dissent at home. Together, these developments helped turn opposition into a wider challenge to the conduct of the war and the credibility of those directing it.