In the United States, political conservatives and many senior officers have historically bristled at using the armed forces to implement policies that would make them a “social laboratory” and divert attention from the mission of securing victory. This panel will show that the administration of Franklin D. Roosevelt and senior military leaders embraced a series of programs that essentially made the military a social laboratory in several important areas in order to make effective use of the vast influx of citizen soldiers that joined the ranks. Frederick Osborne, a social eugenicist and close friend of Franklin Roosevelt, who ultimately rose to the rank of Major General in the U.S. Army had a key role in policies that impact virtually every aspect of the life of American GIs.

Rebecca Greene’s paper reevaluates the decision of the U.S. Army to take the advice of the psychiatric community and used mental health examinations administered at induction to screen out draftees who had a predisposition to suffer mental breakdowns while in the service. Psychiatrists promised this new regimen would cut the number of soldier’s “shell shock” that had occurred during World War I. Her paper will examine the limitations of this initiative and the high rate of mental breakdowns that still occurred during combat even though over one million inductees were prevented from serving by screening examinations. Faith in the screening program delayed efforts to develop protocols for treating psychiatric casualties and led to many senior army officers to question the value of psychiatry. Ed Gitre will examine the establishment of the research branch by the U.S. Army under the guiding hand of Frederick Osborne. Social scientists with this branch systematically surveyed GIs about their attitudes regarding their military service and to range of other issues from attitudes toward the allies and the enemy, why they fought, and whether they preferred Coke or Pepsi in the PX. He will highlight how military leaders used the data collected by the research branch to shape a range of policies on the use of and deployment of African American GIs. Kurt Piehler will trace the decision of the U.S. Army to support the establishment of the United Service Organizations (USO) to provide recreational opportunities for GIs. Relying on faith-based organizations to provide these services reflected continuity with policies established in World War I and represented a defeat by New Dealers who wanted them to be provided by federal agencies. But the ethos of the USO differed substantially from the World War I Commission on Training Camp Activities in the requirement insisted upon by the Roosevelt Administration that constituent agencies making up the USO deliver services on a nonsectarian basis.

Marion “Molly” Dorsey will serve as commentator for the session and her work examining the relationship of the U.S. Army with the professions of law, medicine, nursing, and the clergy make her an ideal scholar to comment on the papers in this session.