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:
>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.
USA told Japan not to invade China or seize European colonies, the Japanese decided to invade the US Philippines so they could get at Dutch oil fields.
The Japanese were not the good guys, they were acting like feral niggers.
 
>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.
lmao, the Japs bombed and sank the USS Panay on the Yangtze in 1937, which would have the pushed the US to the brink of war 4 years early, but FDR hushed it up by confiscating and forbidding dissemination of the American newsreel footage of the aerial attack and accepting a token indemnity payment from the Jap government. Literally the USS Liberty incident, 30 years in advance.
 
To reinforce the point here is Task force 38 at Ulithi Atoll:
View attachment 2782818
View attachment 2782831
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 thought if the Japs sunk the carriers before they left Pearl Harbor, the war in the Pacific would have been a different story. And Midway was decided by American recon planes finding the Japanese fleet before the Japs found where Uncle Sam was hiding his.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Elim Garak
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.
They would have had what they needed.
 
USA told Japan not to invade China or seize European colonies, the Japanese decided to invade the US Philippines so they could get at Dutch oil fields.
The Japanese were not the good guys, they were acting like feral niggers.
The US had no such right to make those demands and Imperial Japan seized the oil fields because the US had cut off all oil to Japan while they were still supplying Chinese forces, which is an overt act of war.
lmao, the Japs bombed and sank the USS Panay on the Yangtze in 1937, which would have the pushed the US to the brink of war 4 years early, but FDR hushed it up by confiscating and forbidding dissemination of the American newsreel footage of the aerial attack and accepting a token indemnity payment from the Jap government. Literally the USS Liberty incident, 30 years in advance.
Cripple fag covered it up because it made it abundantly clear that the US was providing aid and comfort to an enemy of Japan.
 
I thought if the Japs sunk the carriers before they left Pearl Harbor, the war in the Pacific would have been a different story. And Midway was decided by American recon planes finding the Japanese fleet before the Japs found where Uncle Sam was hiding his.
Would say Midway was decided by American signals intelligence. They provided the ID of the intended target, and likely info on order of battle, movements, etc.
 
The US had no such right to make those demands and Imperial Japan seized the oil fields because the US had cut off all oil to Japan while they were still supplying Chinese forces, which is an overt act of war.
Dude, you can’t say Japan was innocent after it seized Hong Kong. Of course the US wasn’t going to tolerate it. This is utter contrarianism.
Should the UK have waged war on the US if it decided to let the Japanese take China and kept supplying them with oil? Is that really your logic?
 
Cripple fag covered it up because it made it abundantly clear that the US was providing aid and comfort to an enemy of Japan.
Wrong. The US Navy's Yangtze Patrol had strict orders to stay out of the way of Chinese and Jap belligerents, and all they did between '37 and '41 was evacuate American citizens and American shipping upriver away from the fighting. There was no way to smuggle arms into China via the Yangtze since the Japs had the whole river locked down all the way to Chungking.

You'll notice that all the foreign war material was shipped overland into China via French Indochinese railways, until the Japs seized that region and traffic was rerouted through the Burma Road and then over the Himalayan "Hump".
 
Dude, you can’t say Japan was innocent after it seized Hong Kong. Of course the US wasn’t going to tolerate it. This is utter contrarianism.
Should the UK have waged war on the US if it decided to let the Japanese take China and kept supplying them with oil? Is that really your logic?
>Dude, you can’t say Japan was innocent after it seized Hong Kong
They attacked Hong Kong the same day they attacked Pearl Harbor. No shit they were going to attack a major supply base of the allies if they had decided the provocations were sufficient to openly wage war.
>Of course the US wasn’t going to tolerate it
And Japan was supposed to tolerate an ostensively allied nation openly supporting their enemy?
>This is utter contrarianism
This is utter dinduism
Wrong. The US Navy's Yangtze Patrol had strict orders to stay out of the way of Chinese and Jap belligerents, and all they did between '37 and '41 was evacuate American citizens and American shipping upriver away from the fighting. There was no way to smuggle arms into China via the Yangtze since the Japs had the whole river locked down all the way to Chungking.

You'll notice that all the foreign war material was shipped overland into China via French Indochinese railways, until the Japs seized that region and traffic was rerouted through the Burma Road and then over the Himalayan "Hump".
Lol right, so this is why in the aforementioned USS Panay incident, three Standard Oil Company tankers were also sunk.
 
Last edited:
>Dude, you can’t say Japan was innocent after it seized Hong Kong
They attacked Hong Kong the same day they attacked Pearl Harbor. No shit they were going to attack a major supply base of the allies if they had decided the provocations were sufficient to openly wage war.
>Of course the US wasn’t going to tolerate it
And Japan was supposed to tolerate an ostensively allied nation openly supporting their enemy?
>This is utter contrarianism
This is utter dinduism
No, you’re expressing dinduism regarding the Japanese. They get to invade China, and the whole world has to shrug and say “aw shucks, I guess we can’t get involved or we’d be the bad guys”.
The only reason you’re siding with the Japs is because you another ZOG obsessed autist like APC.

Really, the Japs had no right to US oil. It was always a privilege, which the US could cut off at any time.
 
No, you’re expressing dinduism regarding the Japanese. They get to invade China, and the whole world has to shrug and say “aw shucks, I guess we can’t get involved or we’d be the bad guys”.
The only reason you’re siding with the Japs is because you another ZOG obsessed autist like APC.
>The only reason you’re siding with the Japs is because you another ZOG obsessed autist like APC.
Lol the only reason you're siding with the US is because it's a gay dead nigger country. This is also the reason for the dindu nothingism.
 
The Japs weren't in the moral right to initiate an unwinnable war of conquest with China, and then on top of that demand that all the European colonial powers and America supply oil and strategic materials to the Jap war effort while denying that same oil and strategic materials to China.

If the Japs didn't want to be "forced" to attack America and the European colonial powers, they should have stayed out of China.
 
>The only reason you’re siding with the Japs is because you another ZOG obsessed autist like APC.
Lol the only reason you're siding with the US is because it's a gay dead nigger country. This is also the reason for the dindu nothingism.
Found the slant apologist.

If you don't know how to play the harmonica, the slant chicks ain't gonna be into you, you know.
 
I thought if the Japs sunk the carriers before they left Pearl Harbor, the war in the Pacific would have been a different story.
Nope sinking the carriers would just delaying the inevitable by a few months and earned Japan more atomic bombs as the Manhattan Project is still on pace.
And Midway was decided by American recon planes finding the Japanese fleet before the Japs found where Uncle Sam was hiding his.
Still makes no difference but delaying the inevitable and Japan still get nuked as they haven't done shit to disrupt the Manhattan Project nor the production of the atomic bombs.

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.
Thank the English for abandoning all of their shit in France and FDR shipped almost everything U.S. Army had to England to rearmed them. On top of U.S. Congress scrapping almost everything after WWI including most U.S. armament manufacturing.
 
Last edited:
The Internment of ethnic Japanese, Germans, and Italians was justified. Seethe harder.
The Japs had zero loyalty to the United States.
There were also German Americans who betrayed the country in both wars.

Blaming the collective for the actions of all is abit silly.

I thought if the Japs sunk the carriers before they left Pearl Harbor, the war in the Pacific would have been a different story. And Midway was decided by American recon planes finding the Japanese fleet before the Japs found where Uncle Sam was hiding his.
The United States produced 200+ aircraft carriers in 4 years. They would be fine.
 
California had Japanese everywhere until WWII and even after they were booted out and shunted into camps their influence remained. Some came back. I learned Japanese as a child and I still remember a good deal of it today. I have Japanese relatives. @mr.moon1488 is right about the oil embargo of Japan and the effect it had. The US was absolutely involved in propping up the corrupt Chinese government by sending over Chennault and the American Volunteers. Asia was dominated by European colonial powers at the time, that were still stuck in the 19th century. We were absolutely brutal to the point our military fretted about being cast as war criminals if we lost.

That said the Japanese were pretty brutal too; lots of veterans settled in California after the war and they never let you forget what the Bataan Death March was or how a Japanese POW camp was run. We used the nukes because even after the firebombing of Japan and the nightmare that was Okinawa the Japanese showed no signs of an unconditional surrender. I can't describe the look on the faces of the men who fought there decades later when they told us what they did. It was a mix of horror and anger at what they felt they were forced to do.

I'm just really glad MacArthur was a weeb and managed to make, and keep, Japan an ally.
 
Back