MikeK
Gold Member
Please feel free to document your disagreement. I'd be interested in learning what you know which conflicts with what I've been led to believe, mainly by my own father who served in the Pacific and had many tales to tell. I'm aware there were isolated instances of cruelty in the combat zones, but for the most part instances of organized and systematic brutality, such as the Bataan Death March and the treatment of prisoners in Japanese camps, are reflective of the kind of cultural cruelty attributed to U.S. troops in Vietnam and in Iraq.Don't blame the draft. Most of those who fought in WW-II were drafted and there are extremely few reported instances of Americans behaving barbarically toward captured Germans or Japanese soldiers, or any civilians, regardless of who or where.
I think I'd have to disagree with that statement, especially concerning the Pacific war.
While I'm aware the actions of some do not define the character of all, which applies to the Japanese and the Germans as well as Americans, but the fact remains that impressions have been cast and they endure. The fact is American troops in WW-II were never associated with the kind of violations of Geneva Conventions standards our more contemporary military has become infamously known for.
But the only point I tried to make is my belief that the reason for the difference in behavior is the stark difference in the sense of purpose. Our WW-II troops had good and noble cause to engage in that carnage but the same cannot be said for those who were and are being misused in Vietnam and the Middle East. The American troops in WW-II were defending their Country. Those who served in Vietnam and the Middle East served and are serving the government. And even though many are not aware of that, or prefer not to be aware of it, the truth resides in the atmosphere and cannot be ignored.