Endnotes for Chapter VII

1 The nature anti extent of the continuous Staff planning; can be traced in papers filed in G-1/8654. For a concise exposition of the situation in late 1939 sec a published pamphlet prepared under the super­vision of the Joint Army and Navy Selective Service Committee, American Selective Service: A Brie Account of Its Historical Background and Its Probable Future Form (Washington: GPO, 1939) .

2 Testimony of 28 Apr 41 before the House Appropriations Committee, 77th Cong, ist sess, ,Military Establishment Appropriation Bill for 1942. Hearings . . . on HR 4965, p. 3.

3 Dealt with in Chapter VI.

4 Notes of Conf of 20 May 40, CofS files, Misc Conf, bndr 3.

5 It should be emphasized that the CVE was purely a prewar measure. The Army did not doubt tile need of a wartime. draft. In the published Brief Account (see note t) it was concluded: "The Civilian Effort . . . is a stopgap. Selective Service is the only sound measure yet devised for the United States." The mechanism for the Civilian Volunteer Effort had been discussed with the Adjutants General of the National Guard in the several states and was more or less in readiness for use. It emerged from the mili­tary cupboard at least as early as 25 May 1940 when an unsigned memorandum advocating it, as a means of training 200,000 men for the Enlisted Reserve during the Fiscal Year 1941, was "delivered to Mr. [Harry] Hopkins by Major McSherry" (Frank J. McSherry, later Maj. Gen.). A few days later the Chief of Staff and the Secretary of War were urging it upon the President as a means of expanding the Army and delaying the induction of the National Guard into federal service. See especially the following papers, some with notations, in CofS files, Misc Conf, bndr 3: (1) Unsigned Memo for Harry Hopkins, 25 Jun 40, sub: Training of Reservists for the Army; (2) Memo, CofS for SW, 3 Jun 40 (revised copy dated 4 Jun 40), sub: Expansion of Forces; (3) Memo, SW for the President, 4 Jun 40; (4) Memo, CofS for Gen E. M. Watson, 5 Jun 40.

6 For all purposes (which means much more than training) the Regular Army had 13,914 officers oil active duty on 1 July 1940. On that date the National Guard had 14,561 officers, of whom fewer than half were service school graduates. There were 2,710 Reserve officers then on extended active duty a number which one year later had leaped to 56,700. Strength of the Army (STM-30), 1 Apr 49; STM-30 predecessor prepared by Returns Section, Misc Div, AGO, an undated compilation: Annual Report o/ SW 1940; Annual Report of C of NGB, 1941, p. 6.

7 See Strength of the Army tabulation (STM-30), Jul 47.

8 Senate Appropriations Subcommittee, 15 Jun 40., 76th Cong, 3d sess, Supplemental National Appro­priations Bill for 1941. Hearings . . . on HR 100.55.

9 See Chapter IV.

10 The firm belief of the Chief of Staff in gradual, planned expansion was several times expressed before Congressional committees. He also expressed himself in this vein to influential private persons and to the President. See especially the following documents in CofS files, Misc Conf, bndr 3: (1) Ltr, Maj W. B. Smith (prepared for Gen Marshall) to Bernard M. Baruch, 10 May 40; (2) Memo, SW for the President, 4 Jun 40, with incl, consisting of Memo, CofS for SW, 4 Jun 40, sub: Expansion of Forces. The quoted phrases are from the two documents last mentioned. Yet on 7 June 1940 the joint Board, recom­mending approval of Rainbow 4, also recommended calling the National Guard to federal service.

11 This account of the initiation of the 1940 draft legislation is based largely upon detailed manuscript memoirs of Grenville Clark, which the author was allowed to examine. The meeting of 22 May 1940 was reported in The New York Times, 23 May 1940, p. 1, col. 6ff. In a letter of 1 August 1940 to the National President of Military Training Camps Association, the Secretary of War (Mr. Stimson, himself one of the most insistent and influential advocates of the draft) acknowledged the association as "the original sponsors of the selective service bill now before Congress." SW Training Camps, 307. The next month a letter from the Secretary thanked Mr. Clark for initiating the movement.

12 These were Col. Victor J. O'Kelliher, Maj. Lewis B. Hershey (later a major general and the head of the Selective Service system), and Capt. Walter Weible. The committee was a standing organization of the armed services, created to maintain a continuing study of selective service. requirements.

13 The CofS appointment book for 31 May 40 mentions these two visitors at 9 A. M. and Rep. James Wadsworth (who ultimately introduced the draft bill in the House and with whom General Marshall was already in communication) as a 9:30 caller.

14 See n. 5.

15 Ltr, Actg SW to the President, 25 Jun 40, CofS files, Misc Conf, bndr 3.

16 See n. 11. Mr. Clark's memoirs record in full and sometimes amusing detail the MTCA committee­men's quest of a Senate spokesman. See also in this series of World War II histories the volumes now in preparation by Rudolph A. Winnacker dealing with the Secretary's Office.

17 Staff doubts about the adequacy of voluntary enlistment plans were increasingly expressed during June, and by the end of the month all were evidently convinced of the necessity for the draft. (1) Memo, ACofS G-4 for ACofS WPD, 4 Jun 40, sub: Premobilization Objectives for the Regular Army, WPD 3674-30. (2) Memo, ACofS G-3 for ACofS WPD, 10 Jun 40, sub: Premobilization Objectives for the Regular Army, WPD 3674-30. (3) Memo, ACofS WPD for CofS, 13 Jun 40, sub: Premobilization Ob­jectives of the Regular Army, WPD 3674-30. (4) Unused Memo, Actg ACofS G-4 for Chief B&LP Br, 21 Jun 40, sub: Estimates-Program for National Defense, G-4/31349-1. When the munitions program of 30 June was presented to the President, a separate statement relating to personnel definitely committed the Army to the idea of the draft. See National Archives, Records of WPB, Policy Documentation file, 212R (log 525) incl H, 30 Jun 40.

18 Senate Committee on Military Affairs, 76th Cong, 3d sess, Compulsory Military Training and Service. Hearings . . . on S 4164, pp. 330-31. This testimony was on 12 July 40. On 22 and 24 July, before another committee, General Marshall explained the need for the National Guard to train selectees and also for a minimum of four divisions of the National Guard "as quickly as we can get them" for "an entirely different purpose"-for the carrying out of successful training for any emergency. See House Appropriations Com­mittee, 76th Cong, 3d sess, Second Supplemental National Defense Appropriation Bill for 1941. Hear­ings . . . on HR 10263, pp. 126-27; and House Committee on Military Affairs, 77th Gong, ist sess, Providing for the National Defense by Removing Restrictions on Numbers and Length of Service of Draftees. Hearings . . . on HR 217, P. 25.

19 Unprinted testimony of Gen Marshall on 4 Jun 40 on HJR 555 before the House Committee on Military Affairs, 76th Cong. 3d sess.

20 Senate Appropriations Committee, 76th Cong, 3d sess, Second Supplemental National Defense Appropriation Bill for 1941. Hearings . . . on HR 10263, p. 4. General Marshall testified to the need for utilizing Regular and National Guard divisions in order to afford trainees the personnel and materiel needed for their training. On 5 July 1940, in a conference in the office of the Deputy Chief of Staff on the Station List and Compulsory Military Training bill, opinion was expressed that the National Guard should be called in for one year as it was "necessary to secure their equipment in order to train a large group." CofS files, Misc Conf, bndr 3. See also papers in WPD) 3674-28.

21 Testimony of 12 Jul 40 before the Senate Committee on Military Affairs, 76th Cong, 3d sess, Compulsory Military Training and Service. Hearings . . . on S 4164, pp. 327-49.

22 See n. I.

23 Based upon Gen Marshall's undated Memo for Hist Div (April 49), sub: MS "The Office of the Chief of Staff in World War II," in Hist Div files; also upon numerous interviews by the author in 1948-49 with Staff members of 1940.

24 For Mr. Stimson's account of this period see Stimson and Bundy, On Active Service in Peace and War, pp. 345-48.

25 Gen Marshall's Memo for Hist Div, previously cited.

26 Senate Appropriations Committee, 76th Cong, 3d sess, Second Supplemental National Defense Appropriation Bill for 1941. Hearings . . . on HR 10263, p. 4. This was testimony of General Marshall on 5 August 1940. Later in the month, in a 24 August 1940 personal letter to Senator Morris Sheppard (OCS 21097-13), General Bryden as Acting Chief of Staff discussed the prospect of equipping Regular, National Guard, and draft troops, all three components totaling 1,000,000 by 1 January 1941. Rifles would be adequate; shelter for 500,000 in barracks (and the remainder in tents suitable to the southern winter) should be available; clothing would have to include substitutes for uniforms, overcoats, and blankets; weapons and equipment were short in tanks, antitank guns, mortars, and other needs, but were "ample . . . for training purposes." This last proved hardly so if a high standard were set.

27 Senate Appropriations Committee, 76th Cong, 3d sess, Third Supplemental National Defense Appropriation Bill for 1941, Hearings . . . on HR 10572, p. 26. Responsive to urgings from hungry constituents, Congressmen wrote numerous letters to the Chief of Staff, urging location of training camps in their constituencies. Answers were uniformly courteous but often noncommittal; usually prepared by G-4, they were signed by the Chief of Staff or the Deputy Chief of Staff. Normally they stated that site selections had already been made by corps area boards but, when a site was clearly unsuitable, this was firmly pointed out. Dozens of such letters are found in OCS 14586-8.

28 Testimony of 12 Feb 41, before the House Appropriations Committee, 77th Cong, ist sess, Fourth Supplemental National Defense Appropriation Bill for 1941. Hearings . . . on HR 3617, pp. 4-5.

29 For the considered judgment of General Marshall that the passage of the Selective Service Law "was a truly remarkable accomplishment of democracy," see House Committee on Military Affairs, 77th Con, ist sess, Providing for the National Defense by Removing Restrictions on Numbers and Length of Service of Draftees. Hearings . . . on HJR 217 . . ., pp. 27-28. In this connection General Marshall testified: "Some may say that it might have been done earlier. I do not feel that way about it, though 1 suffer from the apparent delay."

30 Both studies are titled Memo, ACofS G-1 for CofS, 3 Jun 40, sub: Increase in the Enlisted Strength . . . and filed in G-1 /15588-173. In this same file are the papers subsequently mentioned: a copy of DCofS Memo; HR 10010 "to increase the size of the Regular Army" by amending NDA and proposing 375,000 as maximum; a proposed amendment to Senate Bill 4025 for a 750,000 maximum (this is initialed "G.C.M."); the SW letter of 7 Jun 40 to Chairman Senate Military Affairs Committee proposing 400,000; Sen Sheppard's 18 Jun letter; and the 19 Jun draft for CofS's reply.

31 Memo for the Record noted by CofS, signed O. N. A. (Col Bradley), 15 Aug 40, OCS 20822-84, filed in G-1/15588-173.

32 Draft not used. See two preceding notes. The same file (G-1/15588-173) contains Ltr, CofS to Dir Bureau of the Budget, 2 Jul 40 (OCS 20822-84), asking if there was objection to its dispatch, however, and Ltr, Asst Dir Bureau of the Budget, 2 Aug 40, stating there was none; also the Bradley Memo of 15 Aug 40, previously cited, noting that HR 10010 had died in the interim and no report was needed.

33 Memo, CofS for ACofS G-3, 17 Sep 40, no sub, OCS 20822-89; copy initialed "GCM" in G-1/15588-173.

34 Memo, DCofS for ACofS G-1, 23 Sep 40, no sub, OCS 20822-89, copy in G-1/15588-173. It refers to G-3 study previously mentioned. Accompanying it is G-1 reply of 30 Sep 40 next referred to.

35 Memo, ACofS G-3 for CofS, 3 Jan 41, sub: Strength of the Regular Army, FY 1942, G-3/43792 copy in G-1/15588-173 bears notation of CofS approval. Accompanied by Memo, ACofS G-1 for DCofS, 30 Jan 41, sub: Proposed Change in Strength.

36 Bureau of the Budget, The United States At War (Washington: GPO, 1946), p. 58.

37 Civilian Production Administration, Industrial Mobilization for War, I, 18.

38 William S. Knudsen, the industrial chief, was given only a co-chairmanship with the labor representative, Sidney Hillman. The plain-speaking Knudsen's inquiry, "Who's der boss?" never was answered.

39 Civilian Production Administration, op. cit., pp. 16, 93, 112, 207.

40 Jesse H. Jones, at that time Reconstruction Finance Corporation Chairman, discussed the purposes before the Senate Banking and Currency Committee at the 30 May hearing on Senate 3938. In a letter to the author, from Houston on to November 1947, Mr. Jones notes: "In the early part of May 1940 the President suggested to me that I buy some rubber and tin for stockpiles. I told him we would need legislation. He said 'Go ahead and get it' and that was all that was said about it. We in the RFC prepared drafts of a bill [which] . . . as finally passed gave the RFC authority to do almost anything under the sun in the interest of our National Defense." It will be remembered that the need for rubber, tin, and a great many other critical and strategic materials had been stated many times by the joint Army and Navy Munitions Board, and the list of needs prepared; the difficulty had been in persuading Congress to provide the money for their acquisition.

41 See Chapter II.

42 Gen Marshall's testimony of 12 Feb 41, before House Appropriations Subcommittee, 77th Con, ist sess, . . . Fourth Supplemental National Defense Appropriation Bill for 1941. Hearings.

43 The New York Times, 28 April 40, p. 19, and 2 May 40, p. 22. In this respect the observers were apparently ahead of General Staff advisers, for in the same month a Senate committee was told by the Chief of Staff that "the new 37 mm. gun will handle the tank situation very satisfactorily." Senate Appropriations Committee, 76th Cong, 3d sess, Military Establishment Appropriation Bill for 1941. Hearings . . . on HR 9209, p. 29.

44 These criticisms and others were presented by Maj. Gen. Walter Short and Lt. Gen. H. J. Brees in a final critique of 25 May 1940. They noted the need for heavier artillery, the need for more mechanized tank and antiaircraft units, and the need for more maneuvers. They mentioned poor performance in reconnaissance, intelligence, liaison, and road discipline; and they criticized the use of speed at the expense of tactical efficiency. The New York Times, 26 May 40, p. 2. While General Marshall and Gen. Charles M. Wesson, Chief of Ordnance, had announced the contemplated adoption of the 105-mm. gun, they had refrained from urging the conversation because of the expense involved. See chapter VI.

45 The New York Times, 26 May 40, p. 2.

46 Memo, CofS for Gen McNair, 18 Jun 41, no sub, OCS 14440-363.

47 See earlier reference in Chapter III. For a detailed account of GHQ see Greenfield, Palmer, and Wiley, The Organization of Ground Combat Troops. On pp. 5ff are recorded the beginnings of GHQ.

48 Ibid., p. 6.

49 Biennial Report of the Chief of Staff, 1939-41, p. 8.

50 Otto L. Nelson, Jr., National Security and the General Staff, p. 324. The entire history of GHQ and its successor is axhaustively treated in the Army Ground Forces volumes, previously cited, to which reference must be made for all save the most cursory discussion appropriate to this chapter.

51 Chapters II, V, VI.

52 Memo, COPS for USW, 30 Sep 41, sub: Morale of the Army, AGO 353.8/1, Morale.

53 Memo, Gen McNair for Gen Marshall, 16 Jan 41, sub: Specialized Training, GHQ 353/136. See also Greenfield, et al., The Organization of Ground Combat Troops, p. 39.

54 The New York Times, 7 Aug 40, p. 3.

55 Maj Gen Hugh Drum's critique, summarized in The New York Times, 23 Aug 40, p. 9.

56 Rpt of Brig Gen Sherman Miles, ACofS G-2, in notes of conf in office of DCofS, 27 Aug 40, CofS files, Misc Conf, bndr 3.

57 The New York Times, 4 Oct 40, p. 4.

58 Memo, OCS for ACofS G-3, 15 Oct 38, sub: First Army Maneuvers, FY 1940, signed by Asst SGS, OCS 14440-239. This same point was stressed by General Craig's successor in his discussion of the 1940 maneuvers; see note extracted from CofS to ACofS G-3, 6 Jun 40, OCS 14440-311.

59 Testimony of Gen Marshall before HR Subcommittee (Appropriations), 27 Nov 39. Also that of 30 Nov 39, and of 26 Feb 40. Also Senate hearing 29 May 40, and orders on this subject in Memo, CofS for G-2, 5 Jan 40, OCS 20983-86.

60 Memo, CofS for CNO, 7 Nov 39, sub: Joint Army-Navy Exercise, OCS 19715-94. Note also Memo, CofS for CNO, 9 Sep 41, no sub, OCS 14440-389, inviting Marine Corps participation in the coming maneuvers of 14-30 Nov 41.

61 Memo, DCofS for ACofS G-3, 21 Nov 39, sub; Field Exercises . . . signed Gasser, OCS 14440-262.

62 See Memo, OCS for ACofS G-3, 10 May 40, sub: General Plan, Third Army Maneuvers, Reciting Amendment Ordered by CofS, OCS 14440-303; also Memo, CofS for ACofS G-3, 6 Jun 40, no sub, OCS 14440-311, directing simulation of full air participation. See also Memo, OCS for G-3, 6 May 40, seeking data for correction of inaccurate press report of costliness of maneuvers, OCS 14440-306.

63 Memo, CofS for Gen McNair, 9 Dec 40, OCS 14440-340.

64 Notes of conf in office of CofS, 9 Sep 40, COB files, Misc Conf, bndr 3. The immensity of the training task, performed initially by GHQ and, after the March 1942 reorganization, by the Army Ground Forces, is discussed in detail elsewhere in this series, in the volumes recording the History of the Ground Forces.

65 Memo (informal, signed GCM), CofS for Gen McNair, 15 Oct 40, OCS 16810-175.

66 House Appropriations Subcommittee, 77th Cong, ist less, Fourth Supplemental National Defense Appropriation Bill for 1941. Hearings . . . on HR 3617, pp. 3-4.

67 Senate Appropriations Committee, 76th Cong, 3d sess, Second Supplemental National Defense Appropriation Bill for 1941. Hearings . . . on HR 10263 p. 238, testimony of 15 Aug 40.

68 Ibid.

69 House Appropriations Subcommittee, 77th Cong, ist sess, Fourth Supplemental National Defense Appropriation Bill for 1941. Hearings . . . on HR 3617, p. 7. Col. (later Maj. Gen.) Edward H. Brooks reported a current total in February 1941 of 430,000 in the Regular Army, 210,000 in the National Guard, and 110,000 trainees.

70 Ibid., pp. 3-4, 11. See also discussion in CofS Office, 3 Jan 41, on causes of monthly construction costs. Notes on Conf, OCS Emergency Papers, bndr 10.

71 House Appropriations Subcommittee, 77th Cong, 1st less, Fourth Supplemental National Defense Appropriation Bill for 1941. Hearings . . . on HR 3617, pp. 12, 13.

72 Ibid., p. 12.

73 The question was raised on 13 December 1940 at a Staff conference of Deputy Chief of Staff Bryden with the several division representatives. See notes of the conference in CofS files, Notes on Conf, bndr 6. See also Henry L. Stimson and McGeorge Bundy, On Active Service in Peace and War, Cordell Hull's Memoirs, and Stettinius, Lend-Lease, pp. 63-65 on the interdepartmental discussions of the subject.

74 House Appropriations Committee, 77th Cong, ist sess, 5 Mar 41, Fifth Supplemental National Defense Appropriation Bill for 1941. Hearings . . . on HR 4124, p. 16.

75 Ibid.

76 Ibid., pp. 16- 17.

77 Press relations statement, 7 Mar 41, in Notes on Conf, CofS file, bndr 4.

78 House Appropriations Committee, 77th Cong, ist sess, Military Establishment Appropriation Bill for 1942. Hearings . . . on HR 4965, P. 10.

79 Ibid., pp. 23-24

80 Ibid.

81 Memo, CofNGB for CofS, 17 May 41, sub: Retention of the National Guard in Service, OCS 16820-293. For expressions of discontent and inquiry by Guardsmen see letters of this period as indicated in numerical lox of CofS files, OCS 16820. For a letter that is apparently an expression of General Marshall's ideas and methods in such relationships see letter of Col. W. B. Smith to Pvt. J. M. Sealy, 5 May 41, OCS 16820-282.

82 Memo, SGS for CofS, 5 May 41, CofS files, Notes or. Conf, bndr 15.

83 House Appropriations Committee, 77th Cong, ist sess, Military Establishment Appropriation Bill. FY 1942 (House Report No. 741), pp. 1, 6, 9. For news report see The New York Times, 6 Jun 42, p. 12.

84 House Appropriations Committee, 77th Cong, ist sess, Military Establishment Appropriation Bill for 1942. Hearings . . . on HR 4965, p. 39.

85 The New York Times, 6 Jun 41, p. 12.

86 Ibid., 18 Jun 41, p. 1.

87 Memo, CofS for SW, 20 Jun 41, no sub, OCS 16701 to 17500.

88 The New York Times, 22 Jun 41, p. 1.

89 Ibid. The War Department announcement was recorded in The New York Times well down in column 2, while the State Department actions were near the top of column 1. The headings for the Russian war dispatches covered the tops of all 8 columns.

90 Biennial Report of the Chief of  Staff . . . July 1, 1939 to June 30, 1941 (Washington: GPO, 1941), p. II.

91 Ibid., PP. 11-12.

92 Senate Committee on Military Affairs, 77th Cong, ist less, Strengthening the National Defense. Statement o/ General George C. Marshall in Connection with Retention of Selectee and Reserve Components in the Military Service Beyond One Year, P. 4 (Testimony of 9 Jul 41 ).

93 Ibid., PP. 4-6.

94 1 Aug 41 entry in office diary of Brig Gen (later Lt Gen) L T. Gerow (ACofS, WPD, at the time) for 28 May-6 Sep 41, WPD files.

95 Senate Committee on Military Affairs, 77th Cong, ist sess, Vitalization of the Active List of the Army. Hearings . . . on SIR 88, pp. 13-14.

96 The New York Times, 15 Jul 41, p. 1.

97 Ibid., 16 Jul 41, p. 1.

98 Statement of Gen Marshall before Senate Committee on Military Affairs, 9 Jul 41.

99 Ibid.

100 See Chapter VIII.

101 House Committee on Military Affairs, 77th Cong, ist sess, Vitalizing the Active List of the Army. Hearings . . . on HJR 203, p. 11.

102 Memo, CofS for the President, 16 Jul 41, Gen Marshall's personal file.

103 Memo, Mai C. V. Allan for Col R. H. Brennan, 17 Jul 41, CofS files, Notes on Conf, bndr 19.

104 The Near York Times, 22 Jul 41, p. 1. The message stated that disintegration of the Army would follow failure to take action: "The responsibility rests solely with Congress."

105 Gen Marshall's testimony of 17 Jul 41 before Senate Committee on Military Affairs, 77th Cong, ist sess, Retention of Reserve Components and Selectees in Military Service Beyond Twelve Months. Hearings . . . on SJR 92 . . . and SJR 93, p. 3.

106 Ibid., pp. 24-25.

107 Ibid., P. 3.

108 Ibid., PP- 4-5.

109 Ibid., P. 5.

110 Testimony of 22 Jul 41 before House Committee on Military Affairs, 77th Cong, ist sess, Providing for the National Defense by Removing Restrictions on Numbers and Length of Service Draftees. Hearing ... on HJR 217, P. 28.

111 Senate Committee on Military Affairs, 77th Cong, ist sess, Retention of Reserve Components and Selectees in Military Service Beyond Twelve Months. Hearings . . . on SJR 92 and SIR 93, p. 6.

112 Ibid.

113 Ibid., p. 10.

114 Ibid.

115 Ibid., pp. 11-12.

116 Ibid., p. 12.

117 Ibid., p. 14 .

118 Ibid., pp. 14-15

119 Ibid., p. 15.

120 Ibid., pp. 15-16.

121 Report of Conf in Office of CofS, 8 Oct 40, CofS files, Votes on Conf, bndr 6.

122 Note of Conf, in office of CofS, 16 Apr 41, CofS files, Notes On Conf, bndr 13. The episode is dealt with more fully in Chapter XII.

123 Testimony of 22 Jul 41 before House Committee on Military Affairs, 77th Cong, ist less, Providing for the National Defense by Removing Restrictions on Numbers and Length of Service of Draftees. Hearings . . . on HJR 217, p. 4.

124 Ibid., p. 5.

125 Ibid., pp. 5-6. 121

126 Ibid., pp. 6fi.

127 Ibid., p. 27.

128 The Neat York Timer, 8 Aug 41, p. 1.

129 Ibid., 13 Aug 41, p. 1.

130 Recollections of Maj. Gen. Wilton B. Persons as recounted to the author in 1949.

131 Personal Ltr, Gen Marshall to Mai Gen Ralph Truman, 35th Division, 30 Jul 41, OCS 168l0-310. Similar letters were sent to other National Guard division commanders.

132 Personal Ltr, Gen Marshall to Lt Gen Hugh A. Drum, CG First Army, 16 Oct 40, and to all CG's Armies, Corps Areas, Depts, OCS 16418-144.

133 Personal Ltr, CofS to Dr. Paul D. Moody, 8 Ian 41, OCS 19246-19.

134 (1) Memo, CofS for ASW, 8 Oct 40, sub: Use of Civilian Volunteers in Developing the Morale Factor, OCS 19246-9. (2) Memo, CofS for TAG (Morale Branch), 15 Jan 41, no sub, signed "GCM," OCS 16577-2. (2) Rad, CofS to all corps area commanders, 18 Feb 41, OCS 19246-21. Similar instructions to commanders of field armies, Air Force, Armored Force, same date and file.

135 Ltr, TAG to CG's GHQ AF. Depts, and Corps Areas, 14 Mar 41, sub: Creation of a Separate Branch for Military Morale, AG 353.8 (3-3-41) M-A-M. A reminder of that directive went out a few weeks later in the form of personal letters, Gen Marshall to CG's, 24 Apr 41, OCS 15473-9. See also personal Lit, Gen Marshall to Maj Gen W. S. Grant, 14 May 41, OCS 15473-10, and to Lt Gen Hugh Drum, same date, 15473-11.

136 Memo, CofS for Chief of Morale Branch, 19 Mar 41, no sub, signed "GCM," OCS 16449-23.

137 (1) Memo, TIG for CofS, 23 Jul 41, sub: Morale of Selective Service Trainees, OCS 16418-248. Also Memo, Act TIG for DCofS, 26 Aug 41, no sub, OCS 21177-28 2B. (2) Personal Ltr, ASW to Administrator FWA, 26 Aug 41, prepared in G-4, approved by CofS, G-4 31830-13, copy in OCS 19246-55. See also detailed reports to CofS on morale in Memos of G-1, 26 Jun 41, OCS 15473-13; of 9 Jul 41, G1/1420177; of 5 Sep 41, G-1/14201-95.

138 Personal Ltr to each division commander, 4 Sep 41, OCS 16418-258.

139 Memo, ACofS G-1 for CofS 19 Aug 41, sub: Real Morale. Noted by CofS. G-1 15942-47, copy in OCS 19246-54.

140 Memo, ACofS G-1 for CofS, 10 Sep 41, sub: Designation of the Morale Branch, G-1 15942-47, copy in OCS 19246-58.

141 Rad, TIG for CofS, 15 Sep 41, OCS 19246-60.

142 (1) Memo, OCS for Chief of Morale Branch, 28 Nov 41, no sub, OCS 19246-80. (2) Same for same, 30 Oct 41, no sub, OCS 19246-71. (3) Memo, Chief B&LP Br for BOWD, 16 Oct 41, sub: Allotment from Contingent Fund, OCS 21281-4. (4) Memo, B&LP Br for CofS, 17 Jan 42. sub: Funds for Operation of Welfare . . . Overseas, approved by DCofS, 2 Feb 42, OCS 21281-25.

143 Memo, CofS for the Hon Robert P. Patterson, USW, 30 Sep 41, sub: Morale of the Army, OCS 19246-62.

144 Memo, TIG for CofS, 8 Oct 41, sub: Salutary Effect on Morale, OCS 21177-288.

145 Rad, CofS to CG First, Second, Third, Fourth Armies, 26 Jun 41, OCS 14440-364.

146 Memo, CofS for Gen. Virgil L. Peterson (TIG), 27 Jun 41, OCS 17633-36, and Memo, TIG for WS, 9 Jul 41, sub: Information of Maneuver Situation, same file; also same for same, 16 Jul 41, same sub, but filed OCS 14440-395.

147 (1) Rads, Marshall to Krueger and Marshall to Lear, 12 Sep 41, and Bryden to Lear, 17 Sep 41, all to OCS 1444-3394. (2) Personal Ltr, Marshall to Lear, 7 Oct 41, and Memo, OCS for TAG, 7 Oct 41, no sub, both in OCS 14440-403.

148 The New York Times, 22 Aug 41, p. 7.

149 The 400,000 estimate is that of History of the Second Army, Study 16, Hist Sec AGF, pp. 23-26. A lecture by Brig. Gen. (later General) M. W. Clark, undated but filed in AG 353 (515-41) Sec 1 c, describes the Second Army at one phase as made up of 123,000 men in 2 triangular divisions, 3 square, 1 cavalry, and 1 armored division, and the Third Army as of 219,000 men in 8 square divisions, 1 triangular, 1 armored, and 1 reinforced cavalry division, plus other unit.

150 The unexpected order to reduce the number in training came on 20 September 1942. See Chapter XI, pp- .362ff.

151 Memo of General Instructions, CofS for Army, Corps, and Division Commanders, 17 Oct 41, no sub, OCS 19246-67.

152 The total elimination of the horse, it happens, was premature. In 1943, in the mountains of Sicily and Italy as well, there proved to be a critical need for pack animals. The 3d Division's resourceful commander, Maj. Gen. (later Lt. Gen.) Lucian Truscott, acquired Italian animals and pack saddles. raked up horsemen from within his division, anti employed the emergency "cavalry troop" with striking success.

153 The New York Times, 29 Sep 41, p. 8.

154 CofS file, Notes on Conf, bndr 29, 4 Dec entry.

155 Greenfield et al., Organization of Ground Combat Troops, p. 60.

page created 12 December 2002

Return to the Table of Contents