US Uncensored WWII-era surveys show US troops' surprising thoughts about Japan after the attack on Pearl Harbor

Uncensored WWII-era surveys show US troops' surprising thoughts about Japan after the attack on Pearl Harbor​

Edward J.K. Gitre
Tue, December 7, 2021

Uncensored WWII-era surveys show US troops' surprising thoughts about Japan after the attack on Pearl Harbor

Sailors at Naval Air Station Ford Island watch USS Shaw explode in Pearl Harbor, December 7, 1941.Fox Photos/Getty Images
  • The December 7, 1941, attack on Pearl Harbor thrust the US into World War II.
  • Histories of the attack and its aftermath portray a country and a military braced for war.
  • But a survey of soldiers conducted the next day reveals mixed feelings about the fight ahead.
Tuesday is the 80th anniversary of the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor, which killed 2,400 civilians and sailors, wounded nearly 1,200 Americans, and damaged or destroyed 19 naval vessels and 328 aircraft.

It also thrust an ambivalent nation into World War II.

Stories abound of young men joining up after Pearl Harbor. But how did US troops respond when they learned of the attack?

Thanks to an Army survey program launched the very next day, we know what was on the minds of GIs in the Army's Ninth Infantry Division, which was stationed at Fort Bragg in North Carolina, the US's largest military installation.

President Franklin Roosevelt's declaration of war on Japan on December 8 may have braced many Americans for the fight ahead, but the concerns of most men of the Ninth, it appears, had little to do with events in Washington, DC, or in Hawaii.

In fact, getting US troops to take the Imperial Japanese Army seriously was more difficult than some histories of the Pacific war would suggest.

The Army research program that almost wasn't​

Sailors on leave read about the Japanese attacks on Hawaii and Philippines, December 1941.Bettmann/Getty Images

The timing of the survey was purely coincidental. A special study group in the US Army Intelligence Division began developing the questionnaire used at Fort Bragg well before Japan's attack.

Scientific opinion polling of the American public was new but rapidly increasing before the war. It wasn't easy to get approval to poll US soldiers — in fact, it almost never happened.

Elmo Roper Jr., a highly respected and pioneering pollster, offered the War Department his services. Not only was he turned away, but Secretary of War Henry Stimson prohibited polling outright.

For an Army dependent on cohesion, anonymous criticism could only be "destructive," explained the curt press release publicizing the ban.

But surveying personnel about their needs, behaviors, and attitudes seemed prudent to Frederick Osborn, a former corporate executive who was helping the military provide morale services to troops.

Osborn was an advocate of the social sciences. More decisively for his efforts, he was a childhood friend of Roosevelt. When the chief of the Army Morale Branch stepped down for health reasons in early August 1941, Osborn was tapped as his replacement.

An "over-night General," Osborn quickly facilitated a $100,000 grant from Carnegie Corporation, where he was a trustee, to recruit top-notch psychologists and social scientists without putting them on the Army's payroll.

Young men at a Navy recruiting station in Boston, December 8, 1941.Hulton Archive/Getty Images

Polling was still banned, but Osborn received approval for a more benign "survey" of soldier morale, called Planning Survey I.

Stimson would not have approved had he known, and the Ninth was selected only because a commanding general elsewhere refused to cooperate.

The new research team scrambled to conduct the survey, worrying that holiday furloughs might delay it.

On December 2, Fort Bragg's commanding general approved, and within two days the team was selecting soldiers for the survey, scheduled for December 8 to 10, and training a small group of other enlistees as "class leaders" to help administer it.

The team was doing final training with class leaders and interviewers when news of the attack flashed across the radio. In a second, they knew some questions were now useless.

The team completed the survey by the night of December 10, using four recreation halls, a theater, and several day rooms for interviews. Study director Samuel Stouffer started analyzing the 1,878 questionnaires that evening. He would hardly sleep during the following nights.

Eighty years after Pearl Harbor, the soldiers' handwritten and multiple-choice responses are available for the first time, thanks to the American Soldier in World War II project, which has collected and transcribed 65,000 pages of uncensored commentaries.

What was on soldiers' minds​


Off-duty Army soldiers from Fort Bragg socialize with dates in Fayetteville, North Carolina, in 1942.Ivan Dmitri/Michael Ochs Archives/Getty Images

Some respondents felt exactly how we'd imagine they'd feel when they learned of the Japanese attack.

"Now that Japan has started the war, and the U.S. has declared war, every America Soldier will do his utmost to win this war, and America will win, So help us 'God,'" wrote one GI.

Judging from the remarks of the 1,030 men who responded to the open-ended prompt on the last page of the survey, the US declaration of war was less than transformative.

A few soldiers mentioned Japanese soldiers. "I do not believe there is one man in this army who would back away from any Jap & I know we will die fighting," another enlistee wrote.

Hardly any called for swift retribution, much less expressed the level of racial animus that histories of the US war with Japan have emphasized.

As they were more likely than other Americans to face combat, few of the soldiers appeared eager for war.

"Don't, for God's sake, take away furloughs right now. Don't get excited about Japan. Be calm and remember that we need furloughs more so now than before. To take away all furloughs now is not needed in this division yet—war organization will take time—and we don't want AWOL's," cautioned another respondent.

Like this soldier, most men wrote about more immediate personal needs and desires — furloughs, passes, and whether they'd get to go home and life on the base and amenities (or lack of thereof) in Fayetteville, the nearest town.

The vast majority wrote about the Army itself and what they thought it was doing wrong.

More ambivalence than hatred​


US Army soldiers during weapons training at Fort Bragg in 1942.Ivan Dmitri/Michael Ochs Archives/Getty Images

The US government invested heavily in racist propaganda during the war that portrayed the Japanese as brutish. That effort is partially explained by a trend in the Army's survey data that troubled the General Staff: Too many GIs did not consider Japanese soldiers all that formidable, even after they defeated the US in the Philippines.

American troops massing in England for the November 1942 invasion of North Africa were asked to rank the fighting ability of Allied and Axis soldiers. Russians were believed to be the best, followed by Germans. They ranked Japanese soldiers sixth in a list of eight.

Army's leaders attributed soldiers' disregard for Japanese fighting ability to a "deficiency of information."

Army Chief of Staff Gen. George C. Marshall — dismayed after reviewing a secret research report on the survey — wanted the details of the fighting with the Japanese on Bataan to be more widely distributed to illustrate "their toughness, tenacity of purpose, utter willingness to die, refusal to surrender—a general ruthless purpose which only great determination and skill can conquer."

Using all the media at its disposal — orientation and information films such as the "Why We Fight" series, short-wave radio programs, servicemen's newspapers, pictorial newsmaps, and graphic posters — Marshall's staff redoubled its efforts to change attitudes.

Attitudes tempered by battle​


Military personnel pay respects beside the grave of 15 officers and others killed in the attack on Pearl Harbor on December 7, 1941.CORBIS/Corbis via Getty Images

Whether the Army's efforts to change perceptions worked is an open question.

Soldiers were asked later in the war how much they relied on thoughts of hatred of the enemy when the going was tough. Of soldiers in the Pacific, 38% responded indicated "a lot." Only 27% in Europe said the same.

Soldiers may have cultivated hatred of the Japanese to cope and endure. Yet when the veteran infantrymen of the Pacific and European theaters were asked if the Japanese people should suffer after the war, GIs in Europe were more inclined to say yes, while those in the Pacific were not.

Of infantrymen in Europe, 58% wanted the Allies to "wipe out the whole nation" of Japan when it was all over. Only 42% of Pacific GIs, still a large share, said the same.

Some had gained the appreciation Marshall wanted them to have.

"There is something I hate to admit, but we did not win our battles because the Americans was better than the Japs. On the contrary, the Jap had it all over us, both Officers & men. It was our superiority in strength & equipment," confessed a combat infantry stationed in the Mediterranean.

Edward J.K. Gitre is an assistant professor of history at Virginia Tech and director of The American Soldier in World War II project.
 
Last edited:
Any mention of FDR (much like Bush before 9/11) being given credible intelligence that an attack on American soil was incoming and he did nothing about it, and let the nation be attacked and our citizens murdered in order to galvanize the public against a foreign "enemy". How about him putting US citizens into Concentration Camps, any mention of that?
 
Any mention of FDR (much like Bush before 9/11) being given credible intelligence that an attack on American soil was incoming and he did nothing about it, and let the nation be attacked and our citizens murdered in order to galvanize the public against a foreign "enemy". How about him putting US citizens into Concentration Camps, any mention of that?
 
Any mention of FDR (much like Bush before 9/11) being given credible intelligence that an attack on American soil was incoming and he did nothing about it, and let the nation be attacked and our citizens murdered in order to galvanize the public against a foreign "enemy". How about him putting US citizens into Concentration Camps, any mention of that?
The Internment of ethnic Japanese, Germans, and Italians was justified. Seethe harder.
The Japs had zero loyalty to the United States.
 
"There is something I hate to admit, but we did not win our battles because the Americans was better than the Japs. On the contrary, the Jap had it all over us, both Officers & men. It was our superiority in strength & equipment," confessed a combat infantry stationed in the Mediterranean.
that's basically all of ww2
and ww1
and most other wars in history too

strength in numbers rarely fails. on rare occasion it happens (finnish winter war for example) but more often than not the victorious force is the one which controls more resources than its opposition
 
strength in numbers rarely fails. on rare occasion it happens (finnish winter war for example) but more often than not the victorious force is the one which controls more resources than its opposition
Politics > Strategy > Logistics > Tactics

The Finns turned their swamps into frozen deathtraps for poorly trained and equipped Soviet troops. Home field advantage and smart thinking.
 
Politics > Strategy > Logistics > Tactics

The Finns turned their swamps into frozen deathtraps for poorly trained and equipped Soviet troops. Home field advantage and smart thinking.
I’d actually put Logistics over Strategy. The Allies were able to eat huge strategic blunders and still bounce back thanks to superior production and supply.
 
that's basically all of ww2
and ww1
and most other wars in history too

strength in numbers rarely fails. on rare occasion it happens (finnish winter war for example) but more often than not the victorious force is the one which controls more resources than its opposition
Strength in materiel beats strength in numbers. If you have more tanks, more artillery, and more planes than the other guy, he needs to bring overwhelming manpower numbers to bear to counter. Say what you will about the USSR and its poor quality, but a T-34 beats a platoon of infantry... even German infantry. Heck, on the Western side of things D-Day onwards is the Germans getting brown pants whenever they heard incoming planes or artillery. They may not have had a lot of respect for our infantry, but that matters little when every single lieutenant has a battery of 105's and a flight of P-47's on call.
 
"There is something I hate to admit, but we did not win our battles because the Americans was better than the Japs. On the contrary, the Jap had it all over us, both Officers & men. It was our superiority in strength & equipment," confessed a combat infantry stationed in the Mediterranean.

Unless he fought in the Pacific Theater, don't know how he could make such a statement.

Were we THAT superior in strength and equipment on Guadalcanal in August 1942? No. We just kept fighting, even after the Navy pulled out, taking much of the supplies with them. New Guinea in 1942?

We lost Bataan and Corregidor due to a lack of supplies and air power. When the Japanese tried landings behind our lines in January 1942, those landings were wiped out - "The Battle of the Points".

Island after island, we invaded and beat the Japanese. Did we have superior strength and equipment? Sure did. Vital to winning the war. We preferred to use artillery, mortars, and bombs on the Japanese before throwing in the infantry. US medium tanks cleaned up on Japanese tanks.

In war you use every advantage you have. Beats the shit out of throwing away your troops.

Best example of US equipment saving US lives - Hiroshima and Nagasaki. We were planning and preparing for invasions of Japan. So many Purple Hearts were procured that we're still using them today.

We used our advantages and we won. Big fucking deal. The Japs shouldn't have attacked Pearl Harbor. They started it, we finished it.
 
"There is something I hate to admit, but we did not win our battles because the Americans was better than the Japs. On the contrary, the Jap had it all over us, both Officers & men. It was our superiority in strength & equipment," confessed a combat infantry stationed in the Mediterranean.
I noticed something a while back, the Pacific theater to Uncle Sam was what the Eastern Front was to Uncle Joe. Basically complete hell and the biggest hotspots for most of the violence for the war.

I wonder how come there isn't much pop culture material made out of the United States defeating Imperial Japan compared to the usual "we beat dem nazis for freedum and shit" in Europe with British and Soviet help whereas in the Pacific, the Australians and New Zealanders and whatever remained of the British Indian Army were the backup to the Marine Corps. And Jesus Christo, looking at Australian and New Zealand tank development, that was quite an achievement.

If he was stationed in the Mediterranean, he was probably fighting what was probably the C-Team for the Nazis or whatever was left after Rommel was defeated at El Alamein.
 
I noticed something a while back, the Pacific theater to Uncle Sam was what the Eastern Front was to Uncle Joe. Basically complete hell and the biggest hotspots for most of the violence for the war.

I wonder how come there isn't much pop culture material made out of the United States defeating Imperial Japan compared to the usual "we beat dem nazis for freedum and shit" in Europe with British and Soviet help whereas in the Pacific, the Australians and New Zealanders and whatever remained of the British Indian Army were the backup to the Marine Corps. And Jesus Christo, looking at Australian and New Zealand tank development, that was quite an achievement.

If he was stationed in the Mediterranean, he was probably fighting what was probably the C-Team for the Nazis or whatever was left after Rommel was defeated at El Alamein.
Probably because the war in the pacific was absolutely fucking brutal, in many ways even more brutal than the eastern front. Modern audiences would probably be exceptionally uncomfortable watching some of the shit that went down. We may have nuked two cities, but we did way more damage with the metric fuckloads of firebombing raids on Japan. Fuck, we routinely executed surrendering Japanese troops just because of how many of them faked it to get one last chance to blow up allied troops. We literally went headhunter on their asses, to the point marines would actually send skulls home to their girls. Also the routine use of flamethrowers and flame tanks would make for some VERY ugly watching.
 
I noticed something a while back, the Pacific theater to Uncle Sam was what the Eastern Front was to Uncle Joe. Basically complete hell and the biggest hotspots for most of the violence for the war.

I wonder how come there isn't much pop culture material made out of the United States defeating Imperial Japan compared to the usual "we beat dem nazis for freedum and shit" in Europe with British and Soviet help whereas in the Pacific, the Australians and New Zealanders and whatever remained of the British Indian Army were the backup to the Marine Corps. And Jesus Christo, looking at Australian and New Zealand tank development, that was quite an achievement.

If he was stationed in the Mediterranean, he was probably fighting what was probably the C-Team for the Nazis or whatever was left after Rommel was defeated at El Alamein.
Invading a long list of islands to secure naval ports and airbases that will inevitably lead to being able to bomb Japan into the stone age isn't quite as glorious as the liberation of western Europe. Also, Germany has all the really cool equipment (the Zero and various Japanese carriers/battleships being some exceptions).
The fact is that Japan was really good in the late 30's, but couldn't keep pace with the US's capacity to put the latest and greatest tech on the frontlines. Take the Jap's tank for example, the Type 97 Chi-Ha. High technology for the 1930's. But come the 40's, what replaced it? Basically nothing. It'd have been like if the Americans had to settle for the M3 Lee the whole war or the Germans were stuck with the Panzer III. Not very exciting stuff.
 
The Internment of ethnic Japanese, Germans, and Italians was justified. Seethe harder.
The Japs had zero loyalty to the United States.
Interesting how they never taught me this in high school. This and the U.S.S. Liberty incident makes you open your eyes as to how much “history” is being omitted out of school curricula.
 
Last edited:
I wonder how come there isn't much pop culture material made out of the United States defeating Imperial Japan compared to the usual "we beat dem nazis for freedum and shit" in Europe with British and Soviet help whereas in the Pacific, the Australians and New Zealanders and whatever remained of the British Indian Army were the backup to the Marine Corps.
In no particular order, the answers to your query are as follows: PoC villains, Nagasaki, and Hiroshima.

I only know about the Bataan Death March because I read a YA novel from the Cold War period as a child that featured a couple of Fillipino kids as the protagonists whose father was part of the local contingent attached to the fortress at Corregidor. There are a handful of History Channel shows I can recall talking about the fucked up human experimentation done by Unit 731, or how the troops encouraged civilians on the islands closer to Japan proper to commit suicide rather than be captured by the round-eyes. Meanwhile, my school lessons on the end of World War II included debating the ethics of nuking Hiroshima and Nagasaki, and the argument that it wasn't done to try and save lives but to dick-wave to the Soviets that we had the Bomb.

So...yeah. There is a dearth of beating up the Imperial Japanese because of white guilt. Every side was utterly barbaric to the enemy and committed atrocities, but only the Holocaust matters on the Axis side.
 
Professor Poppa Pump says otherwise


I noticed something a while back, the Pacific theater to Uncle Sam was what the Eastern Front was to Uncle Joe. Basically complete hell and the biggest hotspots for most of the violence for the war.

I wonder how come there isn't much pop culture material made out of the United States defeating Imperial Japan compared to the usual "we beat dem nazis for freedum and shit" in Europe with British and Soviet help whereas in the Pacific, the Australians and New Zealanders and whatever remained of the British Indian Army were the backup to the Marine Corps. And Jesus Christo, looking at Australian and New Zealand tank development, that was quite an achievement.

If he was stationed in the Mediterranean, he was probably fighting what was probably the C-Team for the Nazis or whatever was left after Rommel was defeated at El Alamein.

There’s Tora Tora Tora which had a Japanese collaboration with the future director of Battle Royale. There’s also this:


Then again China has the real story

If only the US troops threw hatchets at planes
 
that's basically all of ww2
and ww1
and most other wars in history too

strength in numbers rarely fails. on rare occasion it happens (finnish winter war for example) but more often than not the victorious force is the one which controls more resources than its opposition
To reinforce the point here is Task force 38 at Ulithi Atoll:
z11hjo492ec71.jpg

qe6s8gsh65041.jpg

This one Task force consisted of 17 carriers, 6 battleships, 13 cruisers and 58 destroyers. thats more carriers in one task force than the japanese had period. Task force 38 could have destroyed the entire IJN by itself, and it mostly did.
The US was vastly superior to the Japanese in all aspects of warfare. They had lost the war by 1942.
 
I'm thinking the career enlisted Army guys in 1941 (not the post-Pearl volunteers) were just fresh off the Louisiana Maneuvers where entire army corps were tramping around the countryside with wooden carts, broomsticks, logs, and tripods standing in for tanks, machine guns, artillery, and mortars. They probably weren't too keen on immediately shipping out to war after seeing all the deficiencies in equipment procurement at that stage.
 
The Internment of ethnic Japanese, Germans, and Italians was justified. Seethe harder.
The Japs had zero loyalty to the United States.
>The Japs had zero loyalty to the United States.
Nigger, Japan had been a US ally for decades prior, and true to Uncle Shlomo fashion, the US sent aid to enemies of Japan in violation of multiple treaties with Japan. Pearl Harbor was completely justified.
 
Back