I would say no, not during the war and not at all after the war. Early in the war we see a lot of aggression and hate towards the Japanese because of the Attack on Pearl Harbor. A lot of wartime bond drives, Propaganda, and advertisement were quick to use Pearl as a selling point. Such as this famous poster, http://seekingmichigan.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/12/Pearl-Harbor_Remember.jpg

The public response to Pearl was similar to what we saw with 9/11, surges in enlistment in the military, Nationalism, and negative and racist attitudes towards the Japanese. People were pissed and ready to fight the Japanese because of Pearl. The military's response to that was the Doolittle raid.

Now because of the Anti-Comintern Pact, the Germans preemptively Declared war on the US, we were pulled into the war in Europe. The US used the Germany First strategy because we saw Germany as the larger long term threat, and planned to subdue Germany, while holding the Japanese at bay. So we see major combat action against both theaters happen pretty close together August of 42 for the Pacific, and November of 42 for Europe so public exposure to the war started to even out at this point.

During the war in the Pacific in Army sent 22 divisions and the Marines 6 divisions. In Contrast to Europe and the Mediterranean, where the Army sent 69 divisions. So during the war, far more soldiers were fighting in Europe than in the Pacific, along with Anti-German sentiments coming back from WW1, the European Theater began to take more of the presence in the media and coverage of the War. So the public opinion on our enemies begins to even out closer the end of 1942.

The further in the war you go, the more we see Europe being to more "popular" theater, especially around D-Day because that was a huge deal and the Army really played it up to the media. Another interesting fact was the politics in the military that played into the Coverage of the war and how the public viewed it back home. In WW1 the marines fought alongside the Army in Europe, and during the course of the war the Marines got a lot of credit for "saving" the army in multiple instances, and it really pissed some army generals off. So During WW2 the Army used the press to give the Army more credit in Europe and become more popular in the Home Front. So the Army allowed the Marines to take the a lot of the press in the Pacific. Even today when we think of the pacific, we think of the Marines single handily winning the war, when in reality the Army did a lot more of the work in the Pacific. The Army sent 22 division to the pacific while the Marines only sent 6.

The question often gets asked in the Marines fought in Europe, and the answer about the Marines on board a ship near Point Du hoc is always brought up. The Marines were given the order to get ready to land and back up the Rangers on Point Du Hoc but were given the order to stand down. Part of the reason they were given the order to stand down was the Army absolutely did NOT want to have newspaper headlines reading something along the lines of "Marines save Rangers at Point Du Hoc." So you can kinda see that the Army brass wanted Europe to be the big deal in the media and wanted to make sure the Army got all the credit for it.

Another part of this was how brutal the war in the Pacific was, the press capitalized on the war in Europe because of how much more marketable it was to the public, we were fighting an enemy that was seen as honorable and profession rather than brutal, cowardly, and grungy the Japanese were. So by the end of the war, the war in Europe was the more popular theater. And by the end of the war with the exposure of the Holocaust, Germany forever became the ultimate evil in the War and cemented themselves as the "main" enemy of the war.

All of these reason come together and puts Germany closer to the Main enemy spot you are talking about. Between the coverage of the war and the sheer difference in numbers, Europe was the bigger theater, got more press, so Germany became the bigger enemy.

You might have just been exposed to more veterans from the pacific rather than European veterans. As to the question on whether your region mattered on where you went, someone else is going to have to answer that because I'm not entirely sure. I know that after WW1, men enlisting from the same areas where sent to different units to avoid having entire towns of men being killed in a single battle. I want to say that it didn't matter, and when you enlisted you were just sent where the army needed the most men, (meaning you had a good chance of getting sent to Europe rather than the Pacific because of the numbers) but you would need some statistics to back that up. I'll research that a bit more, and if I can find something on it i'll comment back.