Consistency of opinions about the
War with Japan and the Gulf War

David J. Krus and James M. Webb
Arizona State University

The origins of the United States’ involvement in the Greater Asia War have been subject to ongoing controversy that has not abated in a half a century since the passing of this event. The position held by traditional historians is that the United States entered the war against Japan to champion the cause of democracy (Lobdell, 1989; Slackman, 1990). Opposing views characterize the same event as a manifestation of aggressive facets of western civilization which resulted in the destruction of the classical cultures of the Far East (Shimizu, 1984).

The recent involvement of the United States in the Persian Gulf War demonstrated some similarities to its involvement in the Greater Asia War. The official position of the Bush administration was that war was necessary to liberate Kuwait and preserve world democracy. An opposing view was succinctly expressed in The Times of India (1991):

Western conduct throughout [the war in the Persian Gulf] has revealed the seamiest sides of western civilization: its unrestrained appetite for dominance, its morbid fascination with high technology military might, its insensitivity to ‘alien’ cultures (February 16, p.1).

During this campaign, an emotional atmosphere was created in which a polarization developed between the notion professing military intervention and the opposing notion that it is wrong to use military means to solve conflicts.

Method

Two narratives, contrasting the American and Japanese views on the origin of the Greater Asia War, were administered to 23 graduate students at Arizona State University (mean age = 31.4 years, SD = 5.9). The narratives described events that preceded the attack on Pearl Harbor and precipitated World War Two in the Pacific. The narratives were distributed to the students during the Persian Gulf War in February of 1991. Preceding the administration of the narratives, subjects were given a sheet on which they were asked to answer yes or no to the question: ‘Do you think President Bush’s explanation of the reasons we went to war with Iraq justifies this war?’ Subjects then received a booklet containing the narratives for both the American and Japanese perspectives on the origins of the WWII in the Pacific. Sequence of narratives was varied so that randomly about half of the subjects read the American perspective first; the other half read the Japanese perspective first. When the subjects finished reading, the last sheet of paper was distributed on which there was question: ‘Which explanation of the reasons for the American-Japanese War is more believable?’ Subjects were to circle one answer.

Results and Discussion

The analysis of responses supported the hypothesis scrutinized. Subjects who agreed with the position of the Bush administration also tended to endorse the American version of the Greater Asia War (39.1%). Subjects disagreeing with the administration favored the Japanese perspective (43.5%). As shown in Fig. 1,

About 83% of subjects expressed congruent opinions about these two wars. Conflicting opinions were expressed by about 17% of subjects. A chi-squared test confirmed that these results are statistically significant (chi squared = 9.76, p < .01).

The attitudinal dimension explored in the present study is an important factor which may influence future entries of our country into a war. More research is needed to explore the behavioral correlates of this attitudinal dimension and its concomitant societal manifestations.

References

Lobdell, G.H. (1989) Culprits or scapegoats? Some views on the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor. In W.B. Cogar (Ed.), New interpretations of naval history. Annapolis, MD: Naval Institute Press. Pp. 247-278.

Shimizu, H. (1984) Target: Pearl Harbor. Honolulu, HI: University of Hawaii Press.

The nightmare continues. (February 16, 1991) The Times of India, p.1.

Accepted January 6, 1992.