Back More
Salem Press

Table of Contents

Defining Documents in American History: Dissent and Protest

Testimony of the Vietnam Veterans against the War

by Aaron Gulyas, MA

Date: 1971

Author: John Kerry

Genre: Congressional testimony

Summary Overview

In 1971, John Kerry, representing thousands of veterans through the organization Vietnam Veterans Against the War, testified before the US Senate Foreign Affairs Committee as part of its lengthy hearings on formulating a legislative plan for the Vietnam War. In the six years since heavy American troop involvement began, thousands had been killed and wounded, thousands of Americans had taken to the streets in protest and Americans began to speak of a “credibility gap” between what President Lyndon Johnson and his advisers had said about the progress of the war and what was rapidly becoming known to the public about the reality. President Richard Nixon had taken office in January, 1969, promising “peace with honor.”

Kerry’s heartfelt testimony about American treatment of civilians and prisoners in Vietnam and his charge that American policies were at least partially to blame for the excessive brutality. On a wider scale his critique of the war is also a critique of the entire post-1945, Cold War approach to American foreign policy. The relentless drive to confront and roll back Communism wherever it may be found has been, Kerry argues, unsuccessful: “we cannot fight communism all over the world.” Kerry combines this criticism of the American war effort and international relations with equally harsh criticism of the manner in which the veterans of the actions in Vietnam had been treated by the military and Veterans Administration bureaucracy.

Defining Moment

By the early 1970s, American involvement in the Vietnam war had—seemingly—declined from its high point in 1968. However, despite a lower number of troops on the ground in Southeast Asia, American military might was still on display though increased bombing campaigns, including secretly bombing targets in Cambodia. In the United States, opposition to the war, always prominent on college campuses, began to spread to other sectors of society. One of these was returning veterans of combat in Vietnam. In New York City in 1967, Vietnam Veterans Against the War was formally established “to voice the growing opposition among returning servicemen and women to the still-raging war in Indochina.” One of the VVAW’s efforts was dubbed the Winter Soldier Investigation. This was an independent series of testimonies by combat veterans designed to publicize atrocities and war crimes committed by American troops. This took place from January 31 to February 2, 1971 in Detroit.

Public attention had been drawn to war crimes and atrocities in Vietnam by, among other events, the My Lai Massacre. On March 16, 1968, American troops led by Second Lieutenant William Calley. During this event, American troops murdered at least 347 (according to US Army records) and possibly more than 400 civilians, including elderly men, women, and children. Additional, the troops raped women and mutilated the bodies of the some of the dead. When the incident became public in late 1969, it sparked protest as well as debate. Some argued, as Kerry does in his testimony, that American policies on how the war in Vietnam should be prosecuted were responsible for events like the My Lai Massacre.

In response to the continuing war and to increasing anti-war sentiment, the US Senate Foreign Relations Committee held a number of hearings on future US policy (including the possibly of ending the war) in Vietnam chaired by Senator William Fulbright. The hearings took place between April 20 and May 27, 1971. The various witnesses included both those in favor of continuing the war as well as those opposed to it. John Kerry, representing Vietnam Veterans Against the War was the eight witness to testify, making his statement on April 22, 1971.

Author Biography

John Forbes Kerry was born on December 11, 1943 in Colorado. After attending boarding schools in New England, he attended Yale University, graduating in 1966. Joining the Naval Reserved that same year, he served four months during 1968 and 1969 in South Vietnam in command of a Swift Boat (technically called a “Patrol Craft Fast”), a river patrol and combat vessel used for transport, intercepting enemy transportation of weapons and ammunition, and other similar operations during the Vietnam War. During his brief tour of duty, he was decorated several times, including the Silver Star and three Purple Hearts. After his service, he joined Vietnam Veterans Against the War, serving as one of their most prominent spokesmen against continued American involvement in the Vietnam War as well as participating in the “Winter Soldier Investigation” into atrocities committed by American troops in Vietnam. It was in this capacity that he provided this testimony to the Senate Foreign Relations Committee in 1971. The day after this testimony, Kerry and other veterans participated in an anti-war demonstration during which he and a thousand others threw their medals, uniform, and other militaria over a fence at the capitol building in protest.

Later, Kerry lose a highly publicized congressional election in 1972 and spend several years in various jobs, often for humanitarian organizations. He would later attend law school at Boston College and serve as a prosecutor in Massachusetts. He entered politics, serving as Lieutenant Governor of Massachusetts under Michael Dukakis from 1983 to 1985 and as a Senator from Massachusetts from 1985 to 2013. He ran a losing campaign as the Democratic nominee for President in 2004 and, from 2013 to 2017 served as Secretary of State under President Barack Obama.

Historical Document

I would like to say for the record, and also for the men behind me who are also wearing the uniforms and their medals, that my sitting here is really symbolic. I am not here as John Kerry. I am here as one member of the group of one thousand, which is a small representation of a very much larger group of veterans in this country, and were it possible for all of them to sit at this table they would be here and have the same kind of testimony.

I would simply like to speak in very general terms. I apologize if my statement is general because I received notification yesterday you would hear me and I am afraid because of the injunction I was up most of the night and haven’t had a great deal of chance to prepare.

I would like to talk, representing all those veterans, and say that several months ago in Detroit, we had an investigation at which over 150 honorably discharged and many very highly decorated veterans testified to war crimes committed in Southeast Asia, not isolated incidents but crimes committed on a day-to-day basis with the full awareness of officers at all levels of command.

It is impossible to describe to you exactly what did happen in Detroit, the emotions in the room, the feelings of the men who were reliving their experiences in Vietnam, but they did. They relived the absolute horror of what this country, in a sense, made them do.

They told the stories at times they had personally raped, cut off ears, cut off heads, taped wires from portable telephones to human genitals and turned up the power, cut off limbs, blown up bodies, randomly shot at civilians, razed villages in fashion reminiscent of Ghengis Khan, shot cattle and dogs for fun, poisoned food stocks, and generally ravaged the country side of South Vietnam in addition to the normal ravage of war, and the normal and very particular ravaging which is done by the applied bombing power of this country.

We call this investigation the “Winter Soldier Investigation.” The term “Winter Soldier” is a play on words of Thomas Paine in 1776 when he spoke of the Sunshine Patriot and summertime soldiers who deserted at Valley Forge because the going was rough.

We who have come here to Washington have come here because we feel we have to be winter soldiers now. We could come back to this country; we could be quiet; we could hold our silence; we could not tell what went on in Vietnam, but we feel because of what threatens this country, the fact that the crimes threaten it, not reds, and not redcoats but the crimes which we are committing that threaten it, that we have to speak out.

I would like to talk to you a little bit about what the result is of the feelings these men carry with them after coming back from Vietnam. The country doesn’t know it yet, but it has created a monster, a monster in the form of millions of men who have been taught to deal and to trade in violence, and who are given the chance to die for the biggest nothing in history; men who have returned with a sense of anger and a sense of betrayal which no one has yet grasped.

As a veteran and one who feels this anger, I would like to talk about it. We are angry because we feel we have been used in the worst fashion by the administration of this country.

In 1970 at West Point, Vice President [Spiro] Agnew said “some glamorize the criminal misfits of society while our best men die in Asian rice paddies to preserve the freedom which most of those misfits abuse” and this was used as a rallying point for our effort in Vietnam.

But for us, as boys in Asia, whom the country was supposed to support, his statement is a terrible distortion from which we can only draw a very deep sense of revulsion. Hence the anger of some of the men who are here in Washington today. It is a distortion because we in no way consider ourselves the best men of this country, because those he calls misfits were standing up for us in a way that nobody else in this country dated to, because so many who have died would have returned to this country to join the misfits in their efforts to ask for an immediate withdrawal from South Vietnam, because so many of those best men have returned as quadriplegics and amputees, and they lie forgotten in Veterans’ Administration hospitals in this country which fly the flag which so many have chosen as their own personal symbol. And we cannot consider ourselves America’s best men when we are ashamed of and hated what we were called on to do in Southeast Asia.

In our opinion, and from our experience, there is nothing in South Vietnam, nothing which could happen that realistically threatens the United States of America. And to attempt to justify the loss of one American life in Vietnam, Cambodia or Laos by linking such loss to the preservation of freedom, which those misfits supposedly abuse, is to use the height of criminal hypocrisy, and it is that kind of hypocrisy which we feel has torn this country apart.

We are probably much more angry than that and I don’t want to go into the foreign policy aspects because I am outclassed here. I know that all of you talk about every possible alternative of getting out of Vietnam. We understand that. We know you have considered the seriousness of the aspects to the utmost level and I am not going to try to dwell on that, but I want to relate to you the feeling that many of the men who have returned to this country express because we are probably angriest about all that we were told about Vietnam and about the mystical war against communism.

We found that not only was it a civil war, an effort by a people who had for years been seeking their liberation from any colonial influence whatsoever, but also we found that the Vietnamese whom we had enthusiastically molded after our own image were hard put to take up the fight against the threat we were supposedly saving them from.

We found most people didn’t even know the difference between communism and democracy. They only wanted to work in rice paddies without helicopters strafing them and bombs with napalm burning their villages and tearing their country apart. They wanted everything to do with the war, particularly with this foreign presence of the United States of America, to leave them alone in peace, and they practiced the art of survival by siding with whichever military force was present at a particular time, be it Vietcong, North Vietnamese, or American.

We found also that all too often American men were dying in those rice paddies for want of support from their allies. We saw first hand how money from American taxes was used for a corrupt dictatorial regime. We saw that many people in this country had a one-sided idea of who was kept free by our flag, as blacks provided the highest percentage of casualties. We saw Vietnam ravaged equally by American bombs as well as by search and destroy missions, as well as by Vietcong terrorism, and yet we listened while this country tried to blame all of the havoc on the Vietcong.

We rationalized destroying villages in order to save them. We saw America lose her sense of morality as she accepted very coolly a My Lai and refused to give up the image of American soldiers who hand out chocolate bars and chewing gum.

We learned the meaning of free fire zones, shooting anything that moves, and we watched while America placed a cheapness on the lives of Orientals.

We watched the U.S. falsification of body counts, in fact the glorification of body counts. We listened while month after month we were told the back of the enemy was about to break. We fought using weapons against “oriental human beings,” with quotation marks around that. We fought using weapons against those people which I do not believe this country would dream of using were we fighting in the European theater or let us say a non-third-world people theater, and so we watched while men charged up hills because a general said that hill has to be taken, and after losing one platoon or two platoons they marched away to leave the high for the reoccupation by the North Vietnamese because we watched pride allow the most unimportant of battles to be blown into extravaganzas, because we couldn’t lose, and we couldn’t retreat, and because it didn’t matter how many American bodies were lost to prove that point. And so there were Hamburger Hills and Khe Sanhs and Hill 881’s and Fire Base 6’s and so many others.

Now we are told that the men who fought there must watch quietly while American lives are lost so that we can exercise the incredible arrogance of Vietnamizing the Vietnamese. Each day to facilitate the process by which the United States washes her hands of Vietnam someone has to give up his life so that the United States doesn’t have to admit something that the entire world already knows, so that we can’t say that we have made a mistake. Someone has to die so that President Nixon won’t be, and these are his words, “the first President to lose a war.”

We are asking Americans to think about that because how do you ask a man to be the last man to die in Vietnam? How do ask a man to be the last man to die for a mistake? But we are trying to do that, and we are doing it with thousands of rationalizations, and if you read carefully the President’s last speech to the people of this country, you can see that he says, and says clearly: “But the issue, gentlemen, the issue is communism, and the question is whether or not we will leave that country to the communists or whether or not we will try to give it hope to be a free people.”

But the point is they are not a free people now under us. They are not a free people, and we cannot fight communism all over the world, and I think we should have learned that lesson by now.

But the problem of veterans goes beyond this personal problem, because you think about a poster in this country with a picture of Uncle Sam and the picture says “I want you.” And a young man comes out of high school and says, “That is fine. I am going to serve my country.” And he goes to Vietnam and he shoots and he kills and he does his job or maybe he doesn’t kill, maybe he just goes and he comes back, and when he gets back to this country he finds that he isn’t really wanted, because the largest unemployment figure in the country-it varies depending on who you get it from, the VA Administration 15 percent, various other sources 22 percent. But the largest corps of unemployed in this country are veterans of this war, and of those veterans 33 percent of the unemployed are black. That means 1 out of every 10 of the Nation’s unemployed is a veteran of Vietnam.

The hospitals across the country won’t, or can’t meet their demands. It is not a question of not trying. They don’t have the appropriations. A man recently died after he had a tracheotomy in California, not because of the operation but because there weren’t enough personnel to clean the mucous out of his tube and he suffocated to death.

Another young man just died in a New York VA hospital the other day. A friend of mine was lying in a bed two beds away and tried to help him, but he couldn’t. He rang a bell and there was nobody there to service that man and so he died of convulsions.

I understand 57 percent of all those entering the VA hospitals talk about suicide. Some 27 percent have tried, and they try because they come back to this country and they have to face what they did in Vietnam, and then they come back and find the indifference of a country that doesn’t really care, that doesn’t really care.

Suddenly we are faced with a very sickening situation in this country, because there is no moral indignation and, if there is, it comes from people who are almost exhausted by their past indignations, and I know that may of them are sitting in front of me. The country seems to have lain down and shrugged off something as serious as Laos, just as we calmly shrugged off the loss of 700,000 lives in Pakistan, the so-called greatest disaster of all times.

But we are here as veterans to say we think we are in the midst of the greatest disaster of all times now because they are still dying over there, and not just Americans, Vietnamese, and we are rationalizing leaving that country so that those people can go on killing each other for years to come.

Americans seems to have accepted the idea that the war is winding down, at least for Americans, and they have also allowed the bodies which were once used by a President for statistics to prove that we were winning that war, to be used as evidence against a man who followed orders and who interpreted those orders no differently than hundreds of other men in Vietnam.

We veterans can only look with amazement on the fact that this country has been unable to see there is absolutely no difference between ground troops and a helicopter crew, and yet people have accepted a differentiation fed them by the administration.

No ground troops are in Laos, so it is all right to kill Laotians by remote control. But believe me the helicopter crews fill the same body bags and they wreak the same kind of damage on the Vietnamese and Laotian countryside as anybody else, and the President is talking about allowing that to go on for many years to come. One can only ask if we will really be satisfied only when the troops march into Hanoi.

We are asking here in Washington for some action, action from the Congress of the United States of America which has the power to raise and maintain armies, and which by the Constitution also has the power to declare war.

We have come here, not to the President, because we believe that this body can be responsive to the will of the people, and we believe that the will of the people says that we should be out of Vietnam now.

We are here in Washington also to say that the problem of this war is not just a question of war and diplomacy. It is part and parcel of everything that we are trying as human beings to communicate to people in this country, the question of racism, which is rampant in the military, and so many other questions also, the use of weapons, the hypocrisy in our taking umbrage in the Geneva Conventions and using that as justification for a continuation of this war, when we are more guilty than any other body of violations of those Geneva Conventions, in the use of free fire zones, harassment interdiction fire, search and destroy missions, the bombings, the torture of prisoners, the killing of prisoners, accepted policy by many units in South Vietnam. That is what we are trying to say. It is part and parcel of everything.

An American Indian friend of mine who lives in the Indian Nation of Alcatraz put it to me very succinctly. He told me how as a boy on an Indian reservation he had watched television and he used to cheer the cowboys when they came in and shot the Indians, and then suddenly one day he stopped in Vietnam and he said “My God, I am doing to these people the very same thing that was done to my people.” And he stopped. And that is what we are trying to say, that we think this thing has to end.

We are also here to ask, and we are here to ask vehemently, where are the leaders of our country? Where is the leadership? We are here to ask where are [Robert] McNamara, [Walt] Rostow, [George] Bundy, [Roswell] Gilpatrick and so many others. Where are they now that we, the men whom they sent off to war, have returned? These are commanders who have deserted their troops, and there is no more serious crime in the law of war. The Army says they never leave their wounded.

The Marines say they never leave even their dead. These men have left all the casualties and retreated behind a pious shield of public rectitude. They have left the real stuff of their reputation bleaching behind them in the sun in this country.

Finally, this administration has done us the ultimate dishonor. They have attempted to disown us and the sacrifice we made for this country. In their blindness and fear they have tried to deny that we are veterans or that we served in Nam. We do not need their testimony. Our own scars and stumps of limbs are witnesses enough for others and for ourselves.

We wish that a merciful God could wipe away our own memories of that service as easily as this administration has wiped their memories of us. But all that they have done and all that they can do by this denial is to make more clear than ever our own determination to undertake one last mission, to search out and destroy the last vestige of this barbarous war, to pacify our own hearts, to conquer the hate and the fear that have driven this country these last 10 years and more and so when, in 30 years from now, our brothers go down the street without a leg, without an arm or a face, and small boys ask why, we will be able to say “Vietnam” and not mean a desert, not a filthy obscene memory but mean instead the place where America finally turned and where soldiers like us helped it in the turning.

Thank you.

Glossary

body counts: total number of enemy dead reported to headquarters

Ghengis Khan: Mongol leader notorious for his brutality

napalm: incendiary substance used as a weapon in the Vietnam war

Vietcong: guerilla forces that operated in South Vietnam on behalf of the communist North Vietnamese

“Vietnamizing the Vietnamese”: reference to the Nixon administration’s policy of “Vietnamization,” which called for the South Vietnamese military to take a greater role in the conflict

Document Analysis

Kerry prefaces his remarks by telling the members of the Foreign Relations committee that he is testifying as representative of the thousands of veterans who would “have the same kind of testimony.” He also refers to the Vietnam Veterans Against the War investigation into war crimes, which took place from January 31 to February 2, 1971 and recites a litany of atrocity discussed by the Vietnam veterans. Kerry goes on to explain that, while the group could have shifted back into civilian society after coming back from Vietnam, they felt that they had a duty to share the truth because the crimes committed in Southeast Asia are more of a threat to the United States than the Communism that is the nominal danger.

Part of this danger, Kerry asserts, is that the experience of the war has “created a monster…in the form of millions of men who have been taught to deal and to trade in violence” who died for “nothing” and who have returned with a sense of anger and a sense of betrayal which no one has yet grasped.” Kerry then recounts a 1970 speech by Vice President Agnew and dismisses his characterization of anti-war protesters as “misfits.” Rather, Kerry argues, the protesters stood up for the soldiers when the nation would not.

Kerry moves into a detailed critique of American war aims in Vietnam and the motivations behind them. He argues that there is no real threat to the United States from what is, essentially, a civil war as well as an anti-imperialist movement and that most of the Vietnamese couldn’t distinguish between democracy and communism. They survived the best way they could, even if that meant siding with more than one of the belligerent forces in the area. Kerry also denounces the behavior of America’s South Vietnamese allies, whom he characterizes as “a corrupt dictatorial regime.”

Kerry then attacks the policies and practices that contributed to the normalization of incidents like the My Lai massacre. Policies such as “free fire zones” in which any person was considered a viable target and the practice of overemphasizing enemy body count, Kerry argued, led to a dehumanization of the enemy that was uncommon even in a time of war.

Kerry’s also critiques the ongoing prosecution of the war under President Richard Nixon, including the policy of Vietnamization, which increased American bombing raids while leaving more of the ground battles to the South Vietnamese Army. He attacks Nixon’s contention that the issue is still “communism” and the need to preserve the freedom of the Vietnamese people. Those people, Kerry argues, are not free under the American-supported government. Further, he asserts that “we cannot fight communism all over the world.”

Kerry transitions from his criticism of policies behind the war and the practice of the war to the treatment of the war’s returning veterans. He cites statistics on unemployment among veterans as well as the sometimes fatal difficulties veterans encounter trying to obtain medical care. A particularly troubling fact Kerry relates is the high rate of suicidal thoughts and suicide attempts among Vietnam veterans. Kerry attributes this directly to “the indifference of a country that doesn’t really care.”

Despite the number of lives lost of all nationalities, Americans seem content to allow the war to continue, even after American withdrawal. Kerry is concerned also because of the willingness of the American public to prosecute soldiers in hypocritical war crimes trials while authorizing the killing of people “by remote control” in bombing raids.

After presenting these narratives and statistics, Kerry begins to detail what he and his fellow veterans want Congress to do. He asks Congress to take leadership and address issues not only of “war and diplomacy” but also of the racism prevalent in the military, including the conduct of the war, bombing of civilians, mistreatment of prisoners and other activities.

Kerry closes his testimony by denouncing the administration for denigrating the anti-war veterans’ service and sacrifices and by expressing again their determination to work for peace in Vietnam and in their own hearts.

Essential Themes

John Kerry’s 1971 testimony to the Senate Foreign Relations Committed bristles with the anger and frustration of the men who feel that they have been used, abused, and discarded by a government that wishes to ignore the horrific consequences of their policies and of the methods they have authorized to carry out those policies. Kerry’s statement addresses a range of issues related to the war in Vietnam. These include the body-count driven statistical analysis that encourages soldiers to treat any Vietnamese person as a potentially-viable target to the military justice system that punishes soldiers “who followed orders and who interpreted those orders no differently than hundreds of other men in Vietnam.” Kerry ties American policy in Southeast Asia to a pervasive culture of racism and links this policy to the same discredited imperialist practices that the Vietnamese people are fighting against. The United States, Kerry explained, has subjugated its ideals to the specter of communism; the Vietnamese people and American soldiers are paying the price for that decision.

Kerry also emphasizes the need for long-term, quality medical and psychiatric care for Vietnam veterans. His discussion of the high level of suicidal thought and the horrific examples of veterans who have died from simple injuries and ailments due to the neglect and incompetence of the Veterans Administration conveys a palpable sense of deep betrayal.

Bibliography and Additional Reading

1 

Brinkley, Douglas. Tour of Duty: John Kerry and the Vietnam War. (New York: William Morrow & Company, 2004).

2 

Kerry, John, and Vietnam Veterans Against the War. The New Soldier. (New York: MacMillan Publishing Company: October 1971).

3 

Nicosia, Gerald. Home to War: A History of the Vietnam Veterans’ Movement. (New York: Crown Publishers: 2001).

4 

Hunt, Andrew E. The Turning: A History of Vietnam Veterans Against the War. (New York: New York University Press, 2001).

Website

5 

“VVAW: Where We Came From, Who We Are.” Vietnam Veterans Against the War. Accessed January 5, 2017. http://www.vvaw.org/about/

Citation Types

MLA 9th
Gulyas, Aaron. "Testimony Of The Vietnam Veterans Against The War." Defining Documents in American History: Dissent and Protest, edited by Aaron Gulyas, Salem Press, 2017. Salem Online, online.salempress.com/articleDetails.do?articleName=DDProtest_0104.
APA 7th
Gulyas, A. (2017). Testimony of the Vietnam Veterans against the War. In A. Gulyas (Ed.), Defining Documents in American History: Dissent and Protest. Salem Press. online.salempress.com.
CMOS 17th
Gulyas, Aaron. "Testimony Of The Vietnam Veterans Against The War." Edited by Aaron Gulyas. Defining Documents in American History: Dissent and Protest. Hackensack: Salem Press, 2017. Accessed May 30, 2026. online.salempress.com.