See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/256496492

Surveys of Public Opinion in the USA Concerning during the Second World War

Conference Paper · June 2013

CITATIONS READS 0 64

1 author:

José Luis Ortiz Garza Universidad Panamericana Sede México, Mexico City, Mexico

24 PUBLICATIONS 17 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Libro sobre Propaganda Británica en México en la Segunda Guerra Mundial View project

Libro por publicarse View project

All content following this page was uploaded by José Luis Ortiz Garza on 03 June 2014.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Surveys of Public Opinion in the USA Concerning Latin America

during the Second World War

José Luis Ortiz Garza*

Paper submitted to ICA´s Communication History Interest Group

for presentation at the 2013 Conference in London

*Dean of the School of Communication Universidad Panamericana, Mexico City Campus [email protected]

Revised on July 28, 2013

-Page 1-

Abstract:

The following examines a series of public opinion polls made between 1939 and 1945 in the United States to sample opinion concerning Latin America. These surveys were carried out by the Office of Inter-American Affairs (OIAA), coordinated by Nelson A. Rockefeller. Leading authorities as George and

Hadley Cantril were in charge of these polls, yet there is scarce written account on the episode.

This was the first time that the knowledge, perceptions and attitudes of the

American people in regard to Latin America were systematically gauged by the U.S.

Government in order to decide on public policies and even clandestine operations.

Mostly based on documents unearthed from the National Archives at College Park

(MD) and the Rockefeller Archive Center in Tarrytown (NY), this paper aims to present a more complete picture of the history of the Field of Communication.

What exactly did the everyday American in fact know about Latin America and its people at the time? Discovering what the U.S. citizen perceived about their continental neighbors during the Second World War posed interesting methodological challenges. The researchers responded using innovative approaches at the time. This included panel groups and interviewing samples comprised only by opinion leaders.

A further question to ponder is whether the overall examination of the “Good

Neighbor Policy” effectively met the goals they were specifically created for – to

-Page 2- help advance what called “hemispheric solidarity”, or mutual understanding between U.S. and Latin Americans.

First Surveys about Latin America in the United States

In the late 1930s, as drums of war banged loud in Europe and Nazi activities increased in America, issues regarding Latin America were included in opinion polls made in the U.S. by organizations like Gallup, Roper, and Fortune.1 The first systematic opinion-polling in the United States concerning Latin America, however, emerged as a result of the objectives of the “Office of Inter-American

Affairs” [OIAA]. Aimed to increase hemispheric solidarity and combat Axis propaganda, this agency was created in August 1940 by the U. S. Government and chaired by Nelson A. Rockefeller. 2

From the very beginning Rockefeller realized that his program required a good knowledge of the field conditions in Latin America and a better understanding in the U.S. of their continental neighbors. He and his staff were

“aware of the significance of public opinion in regard to operations, and the need to evaluate this public opinion by means of specific machinery”.3

1 The major sources of what polls questions were asked during these early years are: Hadley Cantril, Public Opinion, 1935-1946, Press (1946), the poll reports in Public Opinion Quarterly and the The Roper Center for Public Opinion Research. The earliest questions that the former list on Central and South America (p. 95) are from December, 1940. The latter refers refers that Gallup included questions in a survey made from April 13-18, 1936. I am deeply indebted to Dr. Tom W. Smith, from the National Opinion Research Center (NORC), at University of Chicago, for providing me with this information, as well as for: “The Origin and Development of Cross-national, Survey Research”, Paper presented for the Thematical Seminar “The Early Days of Survey Research and Their Importance Today”. Vienna, July 1-3, 2010. 2 Donald W. Rowland, History of the Office of the Coordinator of Inter-American Affairs, Washington, D. C., 1947, pp. 1-7. 3 Ibid., p. 83, 105-114.

-Page 3- To the OIAA the great challenge was to persuade U.S. citizens to set jingoistic sentiments aside and become more interested in getting to know their good neighbors to the south. The task involved stripping off deeply embedded timeworn stereotypes about Latin American people and to embrace them as partners, strategic allies and fellow Americans.

The Creation of “American Social Surveys, Inc.”

Rockefeller contacted George Gallup, a leading authority on public opinion measurement, to help him in the gathering of information for the OIAA in the

United States and abroad. The first step was the creation of “American Social

Surveys Inc.” (ASS), a private, nonprofit corporation with Gallup as nominal

President, Hadley Cantril as Vice President and Executive Officer, and two chief aides: Dr. Leonard Doob and Lloyd A. Free. On October 14, 1940, Rockefeller and

Gallup signed a contract by which the ASS would deliver to the OIAA reports about attitudes of U.S. citizens toward Latin America, as well as information from the other American Republics regarding their opinions, tastes, and habits. 4 The contract established a limit of two hundred and fifty thousand dollars for the final report that ASS should deliver before December 31, 1941. The maximum amount set in this agreement was steadily reduced in the next year, while the termination date was extended until December 31, 1942. 5

4 For the public opinion activities in Latin America made by the OIAA, see: José Luis Ortiz Garza. “The Early Days of Survey Research in Latin America”, in Hass Hannes, Hynek Jerabek and Thomas Petersen (eds.) The Early Days of Survey Research and their Importance Today, Vienna, Braumüller, 2012, pp. 150-165. 5 Donald Rowland, op. cit., p. 84

-Page 4- Gallup asked Nelson Rockefeller to steer his name away from the public in the ASS contract and recommended Dr. Hadley Cantril to lead the project. 6 Cantril and Gallup had become close friends when the former started the Office of Public

Opinion Research at Princeton University (OPOR), and when they co-chaired the

Radio Research Project. Since the Rockefeller Foundation funded all of these institutions7, both Cantril and Gallup were indebted to the Coordinator of Inter-

American Affairs and fully supported him.

There was, thus, a clear interplay between the Rockefeller Foundation,

Gallup's AIPO, Princeton's OPOR, and the OIAA. The newly formed ASS was also supported by this machinery. An article published in December 1940 by Hadley

Cantril in Public Opinion Quarterly summarized the goal of the partnership, stating that the Rockefeller Foundation created a grant for an OPOR project to try and

“chart the course of American opinion throughout the conflict.” 8 In regards to the study’s process, he noted that data would be collected by the AIPO’s “fact-finding facilities” 9 and credited them with permitting “to use its polling instrument to ask questions of representative samples of the national population, to duplicate all of its results and to pool its own information with the answers to questions sponsored by the Project.” 10

6 NACP, RG 229, Box 138, EIB-ASS 15, From Hadley Cantril to Carl Spaeth, January 28, 1941. 7 Everett M. Rogers, A History of Communication Study: A Biographical Approach, New York, The Free Press, 1997, pp. 268-269. 8 Hadley Cantril, “America Faces the War: A Study in Public Opinion”, Public Opinion Quarterly, September 1940, p. 393. 9 Ibid. 10 Ibid.

-Page 5- Cantril entered into collaboration with Gallup as a virtual partner, using the

American Institute of Public Opinion (AIPO) for the development of research policy and methodology. 11 This cooperation became essential to carrying out the different surveys that Nelson Rockefeller required in regard to Latin America. It is relevant to consider that most of the surveys made by ASS in the U.S. were often built on polls conducted either by AIPO or by OPOR. Hadley Cantril decided which questions would be asked to the whole sample (or to parts of it) according to the interests of the OIAA concealed behind the label of American Social Surveys, Inc.

According to Rowland, the OIAA conducted four cross-national public opinion polls and three spot surveys in the U.S. between January 10, 1941 and

November 20, 1942 12. These surveys, currently held at the National Archives in

College Park, Maryland, are specifically mentioned by their ordinal number from the “First Confidential Report” to the “Sixth Confidential Report”.13 Another survey conducted in June 1941 to measure reactions to the Russo-German war does not follow the sequential numbering above-mentioned, but it was clearly made for the

OIAA. It is also safe to say that the specific “Opinion Concerning this Government's

Argentine Policy” survey, made and delivered by Hadley Cantril in August 1944, resulted by request of the Department of State.14

11 Jean M. Converse, Survey Research in the United States: Roots and Emergence 1890-1960, Berkeley, University of California Press, 1987, p. 133. 12 Rowland, op. cit., p. 84. Rowland's references to the surveys come from the date stamped on the cover of each of the reports, leaving out the periods of sample interviewing and data analysis, information that sometimes provides interesting ideas about methodological hurdles or questions. 13 There is even one “Preliminary report", sent two weeks before its final compilation. Cfr. NACP, RG 229, Box 137, 8, “Representative Opinion and Information Concerning Latin America”. Confidential report for James Young, Hadley Cantril, American Social Surveys (Dec. 1940) 14 Not surprisingly, the document on Argentina is housed in a different location from all of the ASS files: the Rockefeller Archive Center, in Tarrytown, N.Y. The detailed list of the archival documents taken from public records is shown at the end of this paper after the bibliography section.

-Page 6- The “First Report” made by the ASS

Issues about Latin America in Gallup's surveys in the U.S. increased significantly from 1940 on. An AIPO poll conducted in July 1940 included three items about South America. To the question: “Suppose it becomes clear that

Germany is getting control of South American countries. Do you think the United

States should do anything at all about it?”, 80% of the respondents agreed. In addition, 67% favored the U.S. Army intervention in the case of Nazi invasion.

Finally, 49% responded affirmatively to the question: “Should the United States spend several hundred dollars a year for South American beef, wheat and other farm products so that Germany would not get control of South American trade?” 15

Hadley Cantril titled his first report: “What People in the United States Think and Know About Latin America and Latin Americans”. Sent on January 1941 to

James W. Young, Director of the OIAA 's Communications Division, he explained that although Princeton´s OPOR had made the survey for ASS, it was AIPO who handled the fieldwork on a straight cost basis. The regular social sample was enlarged for the specific purposes of the OIAA to include double the usual number of farmers. A total of 4,220 persons were interviewed between December 11 and

December 23, 1940.16

The first of the five sections in which Henry Cantril’s initial report was divided provides the richest insights. From the issues examined (i.e. Information,

Opinions, Interest and U. S. Policy concerning Latin America, and Awareness of

15 Hadley Cantril, “America Faces the War, op. cit. 16 NACP, RG 229, Box 137, ASS-EIB 3, “What People in the United States Think and Know about Latin America and Latin Americans”. Confidential memorandum to Mr. Young, Hadley Cantril, American Social Surveys, January 18, 1941.

-Page 7- German threats to U. S. and Latin America), we will focus on information and opinion.

Knowledge about Latin America in the U. S.

Two months after the creation of ASS, Hadley Cantril and Lloyd A. Free suggested that Nelson Rockefeller and members of his staff should share more factual information about Latin America in their speeches, because the significant obstacle to them, as far as the people of the U.S. were concerned, “is to bring Latin

America and its attendant problems into their consciousness.” 17 They added that, despite the American citizens’ unawareness of Latin America and its links with the

U.S., they were working to get out more data of the forementioned global relationship in order to better inform the American people. But in addition to their effort, Canril and Free plead: “we mention it so as to suggest that whatever speeches are made include a good deal of information about Latin America rather than relying on the ‘glittering generality’ type of appeal.” 18

Many answers to the “First” survey confirmed the above-mentioned “woeful ignorance” of the U.S. citizens. Almost half of the people (47%) could not answer the question “Can you tell me the name of any countries you think when people speak of Latin America?”. Four nations received more than 20% of the mentions

(Brazil, 43%; Argentina, 38%; Chile, 26% and Mexico, 21%). In addition, only 1% correctly named over fifteen countries; 5%, ten to fourteen; 14%, six to nine; 17%, four to five; 32%, one to three, and 31% none. To the question “Do you think of

17 NACP, RG 229, Box 138, ASS-EIB 14, From Hadley Cantril and Lloyd A. Free to Carl Spaeth, October 30, 1940. 18 Ibid.

-Page 8- Latin America as including all countries in Central and South America?”, 20% responded negatively and another 20% left it unanswered. 19 A whopping 30% of the respondents in the AIPO's survey of March 1940 ignored the language most spoken in Latin America.20

Spontaneous recall to some open questions produced also important insights about how knowledge was structured in respondent's minds. Brazil and Argentina were by far the top-of-mind countries for many Americans, in spite of the former being a Portuguese- speaking nation, and the latter the least populated by people of mixed heritage (“mestizos”) or of indigenous descent. Furthermore, 40% of the people did not know (or gave no answer) about any big modern city in Latin

America. Despite that fact, Buenos Aires and Rio de Janeiro were mentioned by

41% and 37% of the sample, respectively; Mexico City (4%) and Montevideo (3%) followed in third and fourth places. 21

Surveyors in different parts of the country were bewildered by such a widespread ignorance. In regards to the replies of the participants, one surveyor commented how “they have the idea that all South Americans are part Indian and sleep all afternoon. They cannot realize that they have an industrial life as yet. I imagine most people think of them as doing the rhumba rather than working for a living.” He added how media had given them such a misrepresented view of South

America.22 Another interviewer explained his particular experience of a

19 “What People.” Op. cit. 20 Ibid. 21 Ibid. 22 Ibid.

-Page 9- participant’s ten minutes answering the survey section on Latin America: “The person read the card four times, then answered one question and I thought she never would answer the other. I believe both answers were pure guesswork.” 23

Opinions about Latin America in the U. S.

Cantril concluded that information was the primary determinant of the opinions regarding Latin America and U.S. policy. The greater the amount of information people had about the neighboring countries of the South, the greater the eagerness to see relations improved.24

In February 1942 Hadley Cantril and Frederick Swift delivered to the OIAA the ASS's the report “Opinion in the United States Concerning Latin America”. This account recognized serious difficulties to arrive at meaningful questions useful on nation-wide surveys. The hardest obstacle was the lack of any sense of relationship for U.S. citizens in relation to Latin America. Three hurdles were identified: 1) that people knew too little about the southern hemisphere to give meaningful opinions; 2) that people were so ignorant about the region that were unable to assimilate any new information, and finally, 3) that there was so little interest in Latin America “that almost all question posed seemed cold and aloof to them”.25

When asked about sources of information “about what people in Central and

South America are like and how they live”, respondents overall mentioned newspapers and magazines first, followed by radio, books, movies and

23 Ibid. 24 Ibid. 25 NACP, RG 229, Box 137, 3, Hadley Cantril and Frederic Swift. “Opinion in the United States Concerning Latin America” Third Report Confidential for Nelson A. Rockefeller, Wallace Harrison, Don Francisco. American Social Surveys, Princeton, New Jersey. February 12, 1942.

-Page 10- conversations. Within the group comprised of the poor, elderly and uneducated

Radio was the most frequently cited source of news. Among the magazines most frequently mentioned were, in order: Reader´s Digest, National Geographic, Time and Life (tied). 26

While Cantril and Swift were working on the third survey for the ASS,

Leonard Doob carried out an investigation on the number of stories with a Latin

American dateline that had appeared in U.S. newspapers between October 1941 and January 1942. The results were dissapointing, to say the less. In that period the average for newspapers nationwide was only six stories per month. 27

Months before conducting the first survey of ASS, Cantril was deeply worried at the “highly uncomplimentary” stereotypes held by U.S. citizens about Latin

American people: something “including a dash of gigolo with large elements of laziness, illiteracy, backwardness, uncleanliness, etc.” This “largely untruthful” stereotype could only be corrected by supplying Americans with much more information of various kinds about Latin Americans. He advised not to attack these stereotypes directly in the speeches.28

In the survey made by ASS in December 1939, one question provided a number of adjectives to describe the existing stereotypes held by U.S. citizens about Latin American people. The results confirmed Cantril's presentiments.

Respondents considered their neighbors as: Dark-skinned (77%); Quick tempered

(47%); Emotional (42%); Backward (42%); Religious (42%); Lazy (39%);

26 Ibid. 27 Sadlier, Darlene J. Americans All: Good Neighbor Cultural Diplomacy in World War II (joe R. and Teresa Lozano Long Series in Latin American and Latino Art and Culture). University of Texas Press, 2012. Sadlier, Darlene J. Americans All: Good Neighbor Cultural Diplomacy in World War Ii (joe R. and Teresa Lozano Long Series in Latin American and Latino Art and Culture). University of Texas Press, 2012, p. 31. 28 NACP, RG 229, Box 138 ASS-EIB 14, From Hadley Cantril and Lloyd A. Free to Carl Spaeth, October 30, 1940.

-Page 11- Suspicious (30%); Friendly (28%); Dirty (27%); Proud (24%); Imaginative (21%);

Intelligent (15%); Shrewd (15%); Honest (13%); Brave (12%); Generous (12%);

Progressive (11%) and Efficient (5%). 29

How to change this unfriendly and inaccurate image of Latin American people became thereafter one of the chief challenges in the propaganda handled by the OIAA in the U.S. In subsequent surveys, however, the results on this issue ran on without much change.

Comparative Surveys in the United States and in Latin America

An made by OPOR and reported in August 1941 by AIPO informed the reactions in the U.S. toward the German attack on Russia. Since Nazi propaganda stated that Hitler was fighting the “Battle of the Pope”, Cantril puzzled over the consequences of this narrative framing in Latin America. From previous studies, Cantril found that the Catholics were much more non-interventionists than the Protestants, a difference that could increase with the German attack. 30

Cantril decided to repeat the OPOR-AIPO poll in the U.S. with slight changes in the questionnaire, in order to compare it with a poll to be made by the ASS field men posted in the main capitals of the Continent. On August 12, 1941, Cantril informed and compared the results of both polls. Not mentioned neither among the officially contracted surveys of the ASS for the Rockefeller Office, nor in other public records, this may have been the first comparative poll conducted in the

29 The question was “From this list, which words seem to you to describe best the people who live in Central and South America?”. NACP, RG 229, Box 137, ASS-EIB 3, “What People..”, op. cit. 30 NACP, RG 229, Box 139 20, From Hadley Cantril to Mrs. Anna Rosenberg, Nelson Rockefeller et al., June 30, 1941.

-Page 12- American Continent.31 Cantril drew significant conclusions upon this. For instance, commenting on the overwhelming majority of Americans (71%) who agreed on keeping “more than ever” the help to Britain, Cantril explained that they were not pro-Soviets but anti-Axis and, as well as Latin Americans, they welcomed Russian help. 32 He also remarked that people below the Rio Bravo regarded the war in

Europe as more distant, and possessed colder feelings than most U.S. citizens.

Due to the risks ran in the gathering of political information by foreign agents, Gallup-style polling of public opinion was conducted only in some countries. Mexico stood out. On July 2, 1941, after three days of polling using a stratified sample, Harald Corson sent a complete report on Mexican reactions to

Germany´s attack to Russia. 33

Unique Perspectives of U.S. Catholics About The War

“How Catholics Look at the War” was another confidential report delivered by Hadley Cantril (ASS) in November 1941. The two major religious populations in the U.S., Catholics and Protestants, agreed on their desire to do everything possible to keep the Nazis out of Latin America. They also shared the opinion that it was more important to defeat Germany than to leave the U.S. out of war. Since the beginning of the war, however, Catholics held more isolationist attitudes and showed to be less interventionist than Protestants or non-Church members.

31 Cantril made his analysis from “a summary of cables just received from ASS Latin American representatives and of public opinion data obtained in this United States”. NACP, RG 229, Box 139, 21, “Reactions to Russo-German War in the American Republics”. From Hadley Cantril to Messrs. Spaeth, Jamieson, Aikman, Harrison, Doob, August 12, 1941. My assumptions about the first comparative international survey in America are based on the account made by Dr. Thomas W. Smith in: “The Origin and Development of Cross-national, Survey Research”, Op.cit. 32 NACP, RG 229, “Reactions to Russo-German War in the American Republics”. op. cit., Italics added. 33 NACP, RG 229, Box 138 13, Memo No. 48, July 2, 1941.

-Page 13- Contrary to some expectation, German attack on Soviet Union did not increase the interventionist stand among Catholics.

Surveys Measuring the Effectiveness of OIAA's Activities in the U.S.

As a way to combat widespread ignorance in the U.S. about Latin America,

Nelson Rockefeller created the “Division of Inter-American Activities in the United

States”. Dr. Walter Laves of the University of Chicago, formerly a member of the

League of Nations Association, was appointed as its Chief 34. Leaves organized

“Inter-American” and “Pan-American Weeks” across the nation to increase the awareness and knowledge regarding their continental neighbors. The ASS made opinion polls to measure its effectiveness.

At the request of Rockefeller and Dr. Laves, the ASS made two surveys directly related to the objectives of the Cultural Division. These polls were probably the most comprehensive and interesting of the set made between 1939 and 1945. The “Fourth Confidential Report” explored the role of the opinion leaders in the formation or transformation of attitudes. Meanwhile, the “Sixth

Confidential Report” used a panel group to measure the changes caused on the same people immediately after a Pan-American Week was held in their town.

On August 5, 1942, Hadley Cantril delivered “Opinion in the United States

Concerning Latin America”, the first survey for the Division of Inter-American

Activities in the U.S. Prepared by Frederick Williams, the document (officially labeled the afore-mentioned “Fourth Confidential Report”) creatively combined

34 Rowland, op. cit., p. 105

-Page 14- three methodologies. In the first place, a cross-national survey of opinion toward

Latin America was conducted using a carefully selected sample. Secondly, they approached at least one opinion leader within each of the communities of the sample. Male and female attitudes on the questions were recorded so that the differences between the responses of this group could be compared to the rest of the population. Lastly, a special sample was taken in Toledo, Ohio, a year after an

Inter-American Week had taken place. Since most of the main issues in regard to

Latin America were widely discussed in that city, it was supposed that they could represent a well-informed sector of the United States. 35

The ballot forms for the basic survey were mailed to the separate interviewers on June 17, 1942, and the interviewing took place during the folowing two weeks. The 189 community leaders who gave their responses formed a part of this regular cross-section of the population. The 201 persons interviewed in

Toledo, Ohio, represented in miniature the population of that city and were not included in the sample of the total population. 36

This survey confirmed some of the worse results found in other opinion polls. There was a terrible dearth of information and Latin America was deemed important only within the global picture of the war. At least one fifth of the entire population could not identify the phrase “United Nations” and 40% responded negatively to the question: “Have you heard about the plans for cooperation with

35 NACP, RG 229, Box 137, 3. Hadley Cantril and Frederic Swift. “Opinion in the United States Concerning Latin America” Fourth Report Confidential for Nelson A. Rockefeller and Walter Laves. American Social Surveys, Inc. Hadley Cantril, Director of Research, Princeton, New Jersey. August 5, 1942. Prepared by Frederick W. Williams. 36 Ibid.

-Page 15- Central and South America which this country has undertaken?” Furthermore, only 40% was fairly acquainted with a map of South America. Besides, 20% showed clearly to the interviewers that they had little or no interest in Latin

American matters. The case of an additional 6% was unclear. 37

The greatest disappointment came from the 200 interviewees in Toledo.

Contrary to all expectations, their opinions did not differ from those of the total population. This was, nevertheless, a noteworthy experience for social scientists.

They found a specific demographic which welcomed the reception of more accurate information about Latin Americans: “Here is, then further information that the program instituted to stimulate interest and awareness of South American problems finds an enthusiastic audience chiefly among upper income clubwomen.”38 Sadly, it was not close to being a large enough point of significance to counter the overall American ignorance. “Giving attention to raising the information level of those few people who are already well-informed has not yet been shown to change materially the opinions of many cross-section of a community. It is evident that the programs as carried out so far do not reach down to the majority of people and certainly not to the poor, the ignorant or the uneducated. “ 39

Surveys of Public Opinion about Latin America Using Panel Samples

A small group of faculty members, Ph.D's and graduate students worked as part-time associates at the OPOR in Princeton. Both Daniel Katz (who would be

37 Ibid. 38 Ibid. 39 Ibid.

-Page 16- known for his functional approach to attitude change) and Frederick Williams

(who made military work in opinion research) were in OPOR's staff 40, and took part in the sixth survey made by the ASS for the OIAA. Dr Williams supervised the study and analyzed the data. 41

Carried out in Chicago in April 1942, this survey pursued two purposes: the first, to discover the opinions of various interest blocs in that city; the second, to test the effect of Pan-American Week in persons most likely to be influenced by the

OIAA's educational program. The first objective implied interviewing only certain groups of Chicago: the Poles, Germans, Italians, Mexicans, Negroes (sic), and two types of Whites with Native Background and Differing Income: poor and average upper level. Since the second purpose of the survey required a panel-type study, and budget restraints impeded the reinterviewing of all the participants, only the natives of the middle and upper class were selected as “the panel”. The surveyors acknowledged the resultant bias of this selection. They also considered a priori that any effects of Pan-American Week as such might be difficult to measure and that such bias was necessary. Names and addresses were secured from the respondents who formed the panel so that they might be approached again after the conclusion of the Pan-American Week, held during April 14-21. A goal of 300 cases was set for each of the seven groups. A total of 2480 separate interviews were tabulated. The survey was made between April 3 and April 11 and the panel was reinterviewed between April 22 and May 5. 42

40 Converse, op. cit., p. 165 41 NACP, RG 229, Box 137, 3. “A Survey of Opinion in Chicago Confidential Report. 6th Report, Hadley Cantril American Social Surveys, Inc. May 14, 1942. 42 Ibid.

-Page 17- The findings of the first survey in Chicago showed that the attitudes of the separate groups toward Latin America and Latin Americans were not extremely diverse. All of the sample groups accepted the major stereotype of five adjectives: dark-skinned, friendly, religious, quick tempered and emotional. The Germans and

Italians expressed the more adverse and unfavorable ideas about the nations South of the Rio Bravo, but all groups recognized the necessity of cooperation with them.43

The performance of the panel, especially from the upper level segment, surpassed the results of the other groups. They were best informed and thus more interested and concerned about Latin American affairs. Only 150 people accepted this second interview. Of these, 27% claimed to have attended some of the special programs or listened to some of the special broadcasts during the Pan-American

Week. As it had happened in a similar festival in Troy, N.Y., there were only minor differences between their opinions on the first survey and those of the resurvey.44

A Survey for Psychological Warfare operations in Argentina

One nationwide study carried out in the U.S. about Argentina demonstrates the use of public opinion surveys within the realm of psychological warfare in the

Southern Hemisphere. Almost three years before, in December, 1941, Buenos Aires had been considered by the FBI as “the focal point of Axis espionage, propaganda and subversive activity in South America, especially Nazi activities”. 45 At that time

43 Ibid. 44 Ibid. 45 National Defense Charts. Federal Bureau of Investigation, 1941. “Nazi activities in Argentina”. In “America in WWII. The Magazine Of A People At War 1941 1945”. www.americainwwii.com. (accesed October 17, 2012)

-Page 18- the U.S. had just entered the war and required an unequivocal endorsement of the continental program of unity and defense. Argentina, however, stubbornly maintained a neutral policy, and refused to form a neutral bloc with Chile,

Paraguay and Peru. A month later Argentina leadership managed to water down the motions in the Rio conference defying U.S. pressures to align itself with the

Allies. A military coup d´état in June 1943, the uncovering of a Nazi espionage network, and the reluctance to declare war on Axis powers, led in July 1944 to the withdrawal of the U.S. Ambassador. Under pressure from the Americans, Great

Britain also removed its diplomatic representation and limited the conditions of the meat contract. 46

By then, Hadley Cantril had returned to the Direction of the OPOR. Since

1942, he was also at the helm of the Princeton-based Research Council, initially funded by Gerald Lambert, a successful businessman. In James Tracy´s words, this agency “embarked on a nationwide survey mechanism to monitor public opinion in the US during wartime and in anticipation of the postwar environment.” 47 He confirmed how Cantril’s work helped influence Rockefeller’s wartime speeches, with the former serving as mediator between the multiple groups involved with the research. Tracy added: “The Research Council proceeded to carry out projects for the Psychological Warfare Branch of Military Intelligence in North Africa, the

46 Dear, I. C. B, and M. R. D. Foot, (Eds.). The Oxford Companion to World War II. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2001, Entry “Argentina”, p. 40. 47 James F, Tracy, “Early ´Psychological Warfare´ Research and the Rockefeller Foundation, Global Research, April 29, 2012. Taken on November 1, 2012 from http://www.globalresearch.ca/early- psychological-warfare-research-and-the-rockefeller-foundation/30594.

-Page 19- Department of State on US attitudes toward foreign affairs, and the Office of

Strategic Services on public opinion in Germany.” 48

The conflictive attitude of Argentina may have led Secretary of State Cordell

Hull to gauge the feelings of North American people on the issue. Two months before illness forced his resignation, Cordell asked Hadley Cantril to help him.

Cantril used the OPOR to make a nation-wide survey of 1,200 people that were interviewed between August 10 and 18, 1944.

The findings indicated that only about half the population could be considered correctly informed about the difficulties with Argentina, but there was almost complete uniformity of opinion among different population groups. Only a small minority (10%) showed a disposition to follow a program of appeasement.

Most people believed that the U.S. should continue its policy of not recognizing the

Argentina government as long as it held Fascist attitudes. Almost 80% supported the idea that if Argentina continued to aid Germany and Japan, the U.S. should stop the trading even if that meant making certain sacrifices at home. A sizeable majority favored the government's policy and would appove stronger measures. 49

Encouraged by the results of the poll, the Department of State and the OIAA decided to support an underground movement organized by Argentinians exiled in

Uruguay. A confidential letter dated September 25, 1944 recommended Nelson

48 Ibid. 49 Rockefeller Archive Center, Tarrytown, N. Y. [RAC], Personal Washington Files, RG 4, CIAA General 1947-1956, Box 2, Folder 13: Confidential Report for Secretary Hull, “Opinion Concerning this Government's Argentine Policy”, by Hadley Cantril, Director of Office of Public Opinion Research, Princeton University, August 24, 1944.

-Page 20- Rockefeller to play upon traditional antipathy of provinces toward Buenos Aires and to keep feeding propaganda materials from Uruguay, Chile, Paraguay and

Bolivia into Argentina provinces. The letter reasoned that although the proposed actions were not traditional tact regarding the government’s stance with Latin

America, “if the assumption of the Secretary of State is in any way correct that

Argentina is becoming the repository of Nazi ideology and methods, assistance to a pro-democratic underground movement would be no different in principal than the assistance we have rendered the underground movements of occupied Europe during the past three years.” 50

Conclusions

The surveys made in the United States concerning Latin America during the

Second World War can be seen as an important milestone in the study of the Field of Communication. Most of the American public at that time ignored almost everything about their neighbors South the Rio Bravo and a vast majority was not interested in acquiring information.

Official and semi-official agencies as the Office of Inter-American Affairs faced a formidable challenge in changing the above-mentioned situation that exposed the failure of the Good Neighbor Policy. Several public communication campaigns in the U.S., aiming toward a better understanding of the Latin American people did not even surpass the threshold of gaining interest. The processes by which they acknowledged the problems and the methodologies that were devised to face them

50 RAC, NAR Personal Washington Files RG 4 CIAA General 1947-1956, Box 2, Folder 13: Confidential Memorandum John S. McClintock to Nelson A. Rockefeller, September 25, 1944. The “Junta de Argentina” centered around Adolfo Moreno and Nicolas Repetto, whose principal newspaper “Pueblo Argentino” was published in Montevideo for clandestine distribution in Argentina. Ibid.

-Page 21- entail, however, valuable lessons for social scientists. Prejudices and shameful stereotypes in the United States about Latin Americans evinced the failures of the global system of mass communication.

Hadley Cantril, the main character in this story, was convinced that the greater the amount of information people had about their neighboring countries in the South, the greater the eagerness to see relations improved. Seventy years later, this premise can be at least questioned. Present-day media provides overwhelming information about other nations and yet eagerness to see international relations improved does not seem to confirm Cantril´s assumptions.

-Page 22-

Bibliography:

Aikman, Duncan, “The Machinery for Hemisphere Cooperation”, Public Opinion

Quarterly, Vol. 6 (Winter 1942): 549-562.

Barnouw Erik, et al., International Encyclopedia of Communications, Vol. 1, Oxford

University Press, Oxford-New York: 1989.

Cantril, Hadley, Public Opinion 1935-1946, Princeton, New Jersey, Princeton

University Press, 1951.

Cantril, Hadley, “America Faces the War: A Study in Public Opinion”, Public Opinion

Quarterly, September 1940, pp. 387-407.

Converse, Jean M., Survey Research in the United States: Roots and Emergence 1890-

1960, Berkeley, University of California Press, 1987.

Glander, Timothy, Origins of Mass Communications Research during the American

Cold War: Educational Effects and Contemporary Implications. Mahwah, NJ,

Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 2000.

Moreno Alejandro, and Sánchez-Castro, Manuel, “A Lost Decade? Laszlo Radvanyi

and the Origins of Public Opinion Research in Mexico, 1941-1952”,

International Journal of Public Opinion Research, Vol. 21, No. 1, 2008, pp. 3-24.

Ortiz Garza, José Luis, Ideas en tormenta: la opinión pública en México en la Segunda

Guerra Mundial, México, Ediciones Ruz, 2007.

Park, David W. and Pooley Jefferson: The History of Media and Communication

Research: Contested Memories, New York: Peter Lang, 2008.

Phillips, Hart R., “The Future of American Propaganda in Latin America”, Public

Opinion Quarterly, Fall, 1945.

-Page 23- Rogers, Everett M., A History of Communication Study: A Biographical Approach,

New York, The Free Press, 1997.

Rowland, Donald W., History of the Office of the Coordinator of Inter-American

Affairs, Washington, D. C., 1947.

Sadlier, Darlene J. Americans All: Good Neighbor Cultural Diplomacy in World War

II. Austin, TX, University of Texas Press, 2012.

Smith, Tom W., “The Origin and Development of Cross-national, Survey Research”,

Paper presented for the Thematical Seminar “The Early Days of Survey

Research and Their Importance Today”. Vienna, July 1-3, 2010.

Tracy, James F., “Early ´Psychological Warfare´ Research and the Rockefeller

Foundation,” Global Research, April 29, 2012.

http://www.globalresearch.ca/early-psychological-warfare-research-and-

the-rockefeller-foundation/30594. Retrieved on November 1, 2012.

-Page 24- References from Archives:

NACP, RG 229, Box 137, 2. File: NDcar-1, NDcar-11, Ndcar-35 American Social

Surveys Export Information Bureau 3, “Representative Opinion and

Information Concerning Latin America”. Confidential Report for James Young,

Hadley Cantril, American Social Surveys (Dec. 1940)

NACP, RG 229, Box 137, 2. File: NDcar-1, NDcar-11, Ndcar-35 American Social

Surveys Export Information Bureau 3. “What People in the United States

Think and Know about Latin America and Latin Americans”. Confidential

memorandum to Mr. Young, Dadley Cantril, American Social Surveys, January

18, 1941.

NACP, RG 229, Box 137, 2. File: NDcar-1, NDcar-11, Ndcar-35 American Social

Surveys Export Information Bureau 3. Hadley Cantril and Frederic Swift.

“Opinion in the United States Concerning Latin America” Third Report

Confidential for Nelson A. Rockefeller, Wallace Harrison, Don Francisco.

American Social Surveys, Princeton, New Jersey. February 12, 1942.

NACP, RG 229, Box 137, 2. File: NDcar-1, NDcar-11, Ndcar-35 American Social

Surveys Export Information Bureau 3. Hadley Cantril and Frederic Swift.

“Opinion in the United States Concerning Latin America” Fourth Report

Confidential for Nelson A. Rockefeller, Walter Laves. American Social

Surveys, Inc. Hadley Cantril, Director of Research, Princeton, New Jersey.

August 5, 1942. Prepared by Frederick W. Williams.

NACP, RG 229, Box 139, 21, “Reactions to Russo-German War in the American

Republics”. From Hadley Cantril to Messrs. Spaeth, Jamieson, Aikman,

Harrison, Doob, August 12, 1941.

-Page 25- NACP, RG 229, Box 137, 2. Commercial and Financial. Regional. Reports and

Surveys. Surveys. File: NDcar-1, NDcar-11, Ndcar-35 American Social

Surveys Export Information Bureau 3. “A Survey of Opinion in Chicago

Confidential Report. 6th Report, Hadley Cantril American Social Surveys, Inc.

May 14, 1942.

Rockefeller Archive Center, Tarrytown, N. Y. [RAC], Personal Washington Files, RG

4, CIAA General 1947-1956, Box 2, Folder 13: Confidential Report for

Secretary Hull, “Opinion Concerning this Government's Argentine Policy”, by

Hadley Cantril, Director of Office of Public Opinion Research, Princeton

University, August 24, 1944.

-Page 26-

View publication stats