Samuel Stouffer and the GI Survey: Sociologists and Soldiers during the Second World War

7. Reception and Criticism of The American Soldier

Chapter 7 Reception and Criticism of The American Soldier Princeton University Press prepared for the release of The American Soldier as most publishers do—press releases, synopses, and descriptions of the scope and content of the work. This preparation was enough to gain the attention of the three constituencies most likely to have an interest in the work: soldiers, historians , and sociologists—Stouffer’s audiences. These three groups tended to focus on the same findings, and offered criticisms in the same areas through some of the most influential journals, magazines, and newspapers of the time. Much of this criticism was voiced by some of the era’s most prominent soldiers and scholars. The findings that most interested them were the point system for redeployment at the conclusion of World War II, problems with the infantry, race relations , neuropsychiatric casualties, officer-enlisted relations, primary groups, combat, selection and training of recruits and their subsequent classification and assignments, and the Air Corps. Their criticisms of The American Soldier included the length and complexity of the work, the obviousness of some of the findings, its lack of theory (and the related complaint that the work was not real science), the idea that the surveys and The American Soldier itself was inimical to democracy, the charge that the work was nothing but an exercise in committee consensus, and thus somewhat mechanical, and the accusation that the methods employed were inappropriate to the subject being studied. 118 Reception and Criticism of The American Soldier Primacy of place for the military reviewers goes to Lieutenant General James M. Gavin, commander of the famed 82nd Airborne Division during the war. Writing in the New York Times, Gavin aptly titled his review “A Monumental Study of the Citizen Soldier in War,” and placed his finger on the reason the Research Branch had been created: “One of the most difficult command requirements in a democracy’s army is that of reconciling the hardships of war with the personal needs of the citizens under arms.” He recognized the tension between the demands of winning battles and the maintenance of troop morale, as well as the need for an organization such as the Research Branch to keep commanders apprised of the attitudes of their soldiers. Although noting that The American Soldier offered evidence that was “carefully examined and well presented,” Gavin also observed that the information was “loosely organized at points and a bit given to mathematical explanations at times.” Like many other reviewers of The American Soldier, he offered a tacit request for a shorter, easier-to-read work. As an officer himself, Gavin noted with some regret the paucity of officer surveys conducted by the Research Branch, and also hinted at a desire for more hard theory rather than just evidence, “The authors put the question but offer no answer : ‘To what extent can it be assumed that the men of the United States Army were in fact willing to subordinate their personal aims to the goal of winning the war?’” Sympathetic as he was to the work of the Research Branch and to The American Soldier, Gavin’s stars show in this comment: “Conducting the affairs of an army on the basis of a survey of the opinions of its members—admitting the interdependence of military efficiency and morale—is a dangerous luxury in our contemporary world.” Still, Gavin’s review was overwhelmingly positive, and he praised The American Soldier as “unique in the history of war,” and “a monumental contribution to the science of making citizens of a free country win its wars.”1 Writing in the Field Artillery Journal, Colonel W. S. Nye leavened his largely positive review with a refrain common to most of the military reviewers. Recognizing that the authors did not intend “to compile a report for popular consumption ,” Nye wrote that “the material probably is not yet in a form usable by senior officers charged with making and implementing high-level decisions,” and that “the flow of professional jargon in the opening chapter is apt to frighten away the casual lay reader.” Nye’s analysis encompasses the tension between running an army on consensus and the impulse to understand soldiers and managing, in particular, the relationship between officers and enlisted men. However, “anything ,” he observed, “which can contribute to better leadership is worth exploring .” After reviewing some of the major findings in The American Soldier, includ- Reception and Criticism of...