# Why was the US so nice in World War II? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [January 11, 2012, 10:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-was-the-us-so-nice-in-world-war-ii/609220 "2012-01-11T22:46:30Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 5
**Author:** ![Hogfather65](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/7bcc69/32.png) [@Hogfather65](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hogfather65)\ **Post date:** [January 13, 2012, 1:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-was-the-us-so-nice-in-world-war-ii/609220/81 "2012-01-13T13:46:39Z")
> [@LonesomePolecat](#): > > > [@](#): > > > > Originally Posted by Hogfather65 > > \How about they way they treated the Native Americans - Good Guys… > > This is another meme I really get tired of. The American Indian tribes frequently fought each other over hunting grounds and farming land and resources such as water. When Europeans arrived, the various tribes were perfectly happy to ally themselves with the whites against other tribes, and the whites had no problem with allying themselves with Amerind tribes against other Euopean nations (e.g. the French and Indian War). The red man was playing the same game as the white man, it’s just that the white man played it better. And even with all this fighting, the vast majority of Amerinds died not from bullets but from diseases which the Europeans inadvertently introduced into the Americas. > > If only for the sake of variety, could you please come up with other excuses for despising Americans? And what does your comment have to do with the Second World War in which many Amerinds fought for the United States military? > > > [@](#): > > > > Originally Posted by Hogfather65 > > War is hell and if you are brought up in a culture that is different then you will have no understanding of it - the Japanees soldier did not understand what was wrong with trying to take as meny of the enemy as possible with him when he died - the Boshido code (I am not Japanees so may have got this wrong so forgive any mistakes) thought it was a dishonour to surrender and to do so was to show weakness. When they say enemy soldiers surrender they saw them as weaklings or sub-humans. If they surrendered they would have expected the same treatment. > > The Japanese militarists bastardized the traditional Bushido code of the Samurai for propaganda purposes. A Samurai was expected to be prepared for death to come at any moment. He was not expected to seek out death, and he certainly wasn’t expected to engage in wanton slaughter. But even if pre-militarist Japanese culture was as barbaric as you portray it, why would that make their brutality any less unacceptable? Why is brutality when practiced in the context of some other culture supposed to be understandable and not so bad, whereas similar brutality by Western nations is unforgiveable? I suppose I am as guilty as the Previous poster that I ranted about - all I was getting at is that our expectations of how we expect to be treated is based on how we are ‘programed’ by our culture - if you captured an enemy and say ‘tortured them for fun’ would you expect any different treatment if you got captured? I know this is a bit OTT as examples go but do you see what i’m getting at - if a japanees soldier was taught that to surrender was to admit to being the lowest of the low in cultural term’s and any ‘sub-human’ coward would be treated with distain as being dishonorable and disloyal - why would they see any enemy solider in a different light - I am not condoning them - after all my grandfather has a bad time in WW2 as a POW but even he understood why they where like that. ---
**Author:** ![PrettyVacant](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/49beb7/32.png) [@PrettyVacant](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/PrettyVacant)\ **Post date:** [January 13, 2012, 2:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-was-the-us-so-nice-in-world-war-ii/609220/82 "2012-01-13T14:17:02Z")
Well, of the two nations now, we know which is more prone to invasion and toruture. ---
**Author:** ![Hyperelastic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/a3d4f5/32.png) [@Hyperelastic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hyperelastic)\ **Post date:** [January 13, 2012, 4:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-was-the-us-so-nice-in-world-war-ii/609220/83 "2012-01-13T16:09:12Z")
> [@PrettyVacant](#): > > Yesterdays’s (January 12th) example of the niceness of US troops: > > [Karzai leads condemnation over video as US identifies marines | US military | The Guardian](http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/jan/12/karzai-condemnation-video-urination-corpses) > Did this get as much coverage in the USA as elsehwere? It’s possible to condemn such acts without lapsing into “this just goes to prove…” Did [this](http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2011/10/07/eveningnews/main20117506.shtml) get as much coverage elsewhere as in the US? ---
**Author:** ![PrettyVacant](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/49beb7/32.png) [@PrettyVacant](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/PrettyVacant)\ **Post date:** [January 13, 2012, 4:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-was-the-us-so-nice-in-world-war-ii/609220/84 "2012-01-13T16:38:41Z")
Do you think the USA is the only NATO-ISAF command doing that stuff atm? They all need to promote the same alternative narrative to their domestic audience now the time to leave is nearing and the original goals remain unachieved. ---
**Author:** ![YoDoc](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/y/e68b1a/32.png) [@YoDoc](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/YoDoc)\ **Post date:** [January 13, 2012, 8:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-was-the-us-so-nice-in-world-war-ii/609220/85 "2012-01-13T20:12:38Z")
> [@Latro](#): > > Your point being? > > I mean, do you think it a good thing or a bad thing to try to prevent civilian casualties? My point is that it is pointless to apply 2012 standards to a war that happened in a whole other era. It’s like talking about how awful the Romans were in war by complaining that they used swords. How barbaric! They hacked people to death! Starved civilians in sieges! That was just how war used to be fought. We’re different now, but destroying a whole town, and raping and murdering everybody was pretty standard for thousands of years. ---
**Author:** ![PrettyVacant](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/49beb7/32.png) [@PrettyVacant](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/PrettyVacant)\ **Post date:** [January 13, 2012, 9:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-was-the-us-so-nice-in-world-war-ii/609220/86 "2012-01-13T21:30:20Z")
Tell that to the population of Fallujah. ---
**Author:** ![tomndebb](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b9e5f3/32.png) [@tomndebb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tomndebb)\ **Post date:** [January 13, 2012, 11:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-was-the-us-so-nice-in-world-war-ii/609220/87 "2012-01-13T23:45:08Z")
Not to mention Panama City. ---
**Author:** ![tomndebb](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b9e5f3/32.png) [@tomndebb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tomndebb)\ **Post date:** [January 13, 2012, 11:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-was-the-us-so-nice-in-world-war-ii/609220/88 "2012-01-13T23:49:31Z")
> [@YoDoc](#): > > Leaving civilians out of war is a fairly new concept. Terrorizing and massacring the populace while destroying the war-making capabilities of the locals is a time-honored method of war used by everyone, in every war, until fairly recently. Actually, in many cases, leaving civilians out of a conflict gained its greatest acceptance in the eighteenth century, survived through the nineteenth and early twentieth, (as long as the population was included in one’s own basic culture), and was then discarded during WWII. Even the occasional lapses, (_e.g._, Leuven, Belgium in 1914), were generally condemned at the time they occurred. ---
**Author:** ![YoDoc](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/y/e68b1a/32.png) [@YoDoc](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/YoDoc)\ **Post date:** [January 14, 2012, 1:50am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-was-the-us-so-nice-in-world-war-ii/609220/89 "2012-01-14T01:50:42Z")
> [@tomndebb](#): > > Actually, in many cases, leaving civilians out of a conflict gained its greatest acceptance in the eighteenth century, survived through the nineteenth and early twentieth, (as long as the population was included in one’s own basic culture), and was then discarded during WWII. Even the occasional lapses, (_e.g._, Leuven, Belgium in 1914), were generally condemned at the time they occurred. A couple hundred years is fairly recent. ---
**Author:** ![Dissonance](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/85f322/32.png) [@Dissonance](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dissonance)\ **Post date:** [January 14, 2012, 4:59am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-was-the-us-so-nice-in-world-war-ii/609220/90 "2012-01-14T04:59:24Z")
> [@YoDoc](#): > > We’re different now, but destroying a whole town, and raping and murdering everybody was pretty standard for thousands of years. Are we? An estimated 2 million civilians were killed during the [Vietnam War](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vietnam_War_casualties). Not all were killed by the US to be sure, but it doesn’t speak well for mankind ‘being different now.’ The lowest count from [Iraq Body Count](http://www.iraqbodycount.org/) is some 105,000 civilian deaths. Something not shown in the movie version of _Black Hawk Down_ is the large number of Somali civilians who were killed in the crossfire. A look at practically any war or conflict post-WW2 shows a very high level of civilian casualties. Thankfully no major power has been involved in a total war since the end of WW2, but if it ever came to pass the target of Mutually Assured Destruction would be vaporizing every city of the enemy and the civilians living in them. ---
**Author:** ![YoDoc](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/y/e68b1a/32.png) [@YoDoc](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/YoDoc)\ **Post date:** [January 14, 2012, 1:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-was-the-us-so-nice-in-world-war-ii/609220/91 "2012-01-14T13:07:17Z")
105,000 civilians in almost nine years? Sounds better than I’d have expected given humanity’s track record. Plus I have severe doubts that those were all, or even mostly, caused by US military. ---
**Author:** ![PrettyVacant](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/49beb7/32.png) [@PrettyVacant](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/PrettyVacant)\ **Post date:** [January 14, 2012, 1:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-was-the-us-so-nice-in-world-war-ii/609220/92 "2012-01-14T13:48:11Z")
Hell no, the US had barely anything to do with it. Just think how much worse it would have been had the USA not invaded… ---
**Author:** ![Acsenray](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/acsenray/32/4519_2.png) [@Acsenray](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Acsenray)\ **Post date:** [January 14, 2012, 1:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-was-the-us-so-nice-in-world-war-ii/609220/93 "2012-01-14T13:54:20Z")
> [@obbn](#): > > As far as why were the Americans for the most part nice? I think it comes down to the character of the average American. We are by nature a caring and compassionate people. I believe that to the extent that the behavior of American personnel has been relatively better is because of the setting and enforcement of standards by society and by our leadership, not because of the individual character of Americans. Look at Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo. When our leadership decided to chuck our standards out the window, our behavior went south. ---
**Author:** ![YoDoc](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/y/e68b1a/32.png) [@YoDoc](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/YoDoc)\ **Post date:** [January 14, 2012, 3:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-was-the-us-so-nice-in-world-war-ii/609220/94 "2012-01-14T15:56:26Z")
> [@PrettyVacant](#): > > Hell no, the US had barely anything to do with it. > > Just think how much worse it would have been had the USA not invaded… I’m unsure if you are being facetious or not, so I will respond as if you are. If somebody invaded your country, would you see that as an excuse to kill your own countrymen? I know I would. I hope China invades and occupies America so I finally have an excuse to kill Episcopalians.\* \*I do not actually want to kill Episcopalians. This was only an example. ---
**Author:** ![YoDoc](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/y/e68b1a/32.png) [@YoDoc](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/YoDoc)\ **Post date:** [January 14, 2012, 3:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-was-the-us-so-nice-in-world-war-ii/609220/95 "2012-01-14T15:57:26Z")
> [@Acsenray](#): > > I believe that to the extent that the behavior of American personnel has been relatively better is because of the setting and enforcement of standards by society and by our leadership, not because of the individual character of Americans. Look at Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo. When our leadership decided to chuck our standards out the window, our behavior went south. Yup. Happens on a smaller scale, too. ---
**Author:** ![Acsenray](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/acsenray/32/4519_2.png) [@Acsenray](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Acsenray)\ **Post date:** [January 14, 2012, 4:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-was-the-us-so-nice-in-world-war-ii/609220/96 "2012-01-14T16:53:24Z")
Yeah, definitely. A failure in low-level leadership can also result in a failure to live up to our standards. ---
**Author:** ![PrettyVacant](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/49beb7/32.png) [@PrettyVacant](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/PrettyVacant)\ **Post date:** [January 14, 2012, 5:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-was-the-us-so-nice-in-world-war-ii/609220/97 "2012-01-14T17:42:21Z")
> [@YoDoc](#): > > If somebody invaded your country, would you see that as an excuse to kill your own countrymen? I know I would. You’ve lost me; your ‘point’ seemed to be that the deaths of so many Iraqi civilians wasn’t the fault of the USA because Iraqis killed each other, this seems (a) odd, and (b) to ignore the fact the second act of Paul Bremner was to disband the Iraqi army. You then want me to talk about who I would kill in unlikely circumstances. Please forgive me if I decline the invitation. Incidentally, have you read much about Fallujah? ---
**Author:** ![YoDoc](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/y/e68b1a/32.png) [@YoDoc](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/YoDoc)\ **Post date:** [January 14, 2012, 6:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-was-the-us-so-nice-in-world-war-ii/609220/98 "2012-01-14T18:59:32Z")
1. If you kill somebody, it’s your deal, not the cops. 2. I just don’t think that having your country invaded is reason to start the sectarian killings up. No comment on that? You know the old saying that silence is assent? It doesn’t matter what Paul Bremer did. Those civilians killed each other, and to suggest that US policy is the causal factor, while knowing that money, blood, and time were spent rebuilding schools, infrastructure, cleaning out corruption, and training police and military, is not only wrong, but undermines the character of the Iraqi people by saying “ooh! If only we had left this brutal dictator in power, they wouldn’t have killed each other so much!” The Iraqi people, IME, are a hard working, resilient lot. They put a lot if faith in their own efforts. The idiots doing these killings often end up being hired mercenaries or foreigners recruited by one faction or another. Admitting that the US did as much as it could is not supporting the war. Admitting that US soldiers, for the vast majority of them, did what they could and didn’t murder anybody, is not supporting the war. Shit, I went there TWICE and still don’t support it. ---
**Author:** ![YoDoc](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/y/e68b1a/32.png) [@YoDoc](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/YoDoc)\ **Post date:** [January 14, 2012, 7:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-was-the-us-so-nice-in-world-war-ii/609220/99 "2012-01-14T19:02:32Z")
Incidentally, yeah I’ve read a little bit about Fallujah. I’ve talked to guys who were there. You ever talk to a citizen of Fallujah? Most of them were gone. Again, that was mostly mercenaries and radicals, mostly foreigners. ---
**Author:** ![Dissonance](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/85f322/32.png) [@Dissonance](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dissonance)\ **Post date:** [January 14, 2012, 7:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-was-the-us-so-nice-in-world-war-ii/609220/100 "2012-01-14T19:12:15Z")
> [@YoDoc](#): > > 105,000 civilians in almost nine years? Sounds better than I’d have expected given humanity’s track record. Plus I have severe doubts that those were all, or even mostly, caused by US military. Interesting selective reading and parsing. 105,000 is the lowest of the low end estimates, and I didn’t say the immediate cause of death was the US military. You’re the one claiming we as humanity are different now with our 2012 standards. If ~12,000 civilian dead a year as the basement figure in a small conflict is better than you’d expect given humanity’s record, are you not judging 2012 on the standards of the past and only managing to find it ‘better than you’d expect?’ What of 2 million dead in Vietnam? Do 200,000 dead civilians a year meet your standard of “That was just how war used to be fought. We’re different now, but destroying a whole town, and raping and murdering everybody was pretty standard for thousands of years.” Look at any conflict post-WW2 and you will find that civilian casualties are almost without exception higher than military casualties. Note that Iraq Body Count gives a minimum figure of 150,000 civilian and combatant deaths broken down into 105,000 civilian and 45,000 combatants, a ratio of 2.33 civilian deaths per combatant death. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-was-the-us-so-nice-in-world-war-ii/609220.md?page=4) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-was-the-us-so-nice-in-world-war-ii/609220.md?page=6)