Page:Legislative History of the AAF and USAF.djvu/41

�This Page Declassified lAW EO12958 Another act of Congress, approved 14 October 1940, directly concerned Air Corps personnel, This bill was drafted by the Air Corps and submitted to Congress by the Secreta?j of War after revision by the O.1 Division of the War Department General Staff. It provided that any officer who served four years as chief or assistant chiel of a branch, or as commanding general of the General Headquar?rs, A?r Force, or who served two years as a wing commander in the Air Corps and was subsequently re- tired, should retire at the highest g?ade held by him as chief, assistant chief, com- manding officer, or wing commander. This law was retroactive m the case of officers who had previously served for four years as a chief or assistant chmf of branch of the Army, or for two years as wing commander of the Air Corps, and had been retired m a grade below that of brigether general? '-'? As it turned out, this law had undesira? ble results. 'Subsequent reorganization of the air arm resulted in the creation of eche- lons higher than wings in the chain of com- mand, and, as a consequence, the com- manders of the higher echelons were now discriminated agains? in that they did not enjoy the special retirement benefits ac- corded the wing commanders. Further legis- lation on this subject was not enacted until 19?5.?-? ORGANIZATIONAL CHANGES IN THE AIR ARM During the period under discussion there was no legislattve action dechug with the reorganization of the Air Corps. l?Iatters of Air Corps reorganizatmn were generally handled by admimstrative action. On 1 March 1939 the OCAC and the GHQ Air Force were both placed under the jurisdic- tion of the Chief of the Air Corps, Maj. Gen. Iffenry H. Arnold, m accordance with a pro- posal 'made by him on 2 February 1939 that he should be designated Chief of Awa- tiqn, GHQ. Thus the GHQ Air Force was made directly respons?bI½ to the Chief of the Air Corps rather than to the War De- partment Chief of Staff, and the dillon of authority between OCAC and the GHQ An' Force was ended. Unfortunately this unity of command lasted only a short time, the GHQ Air Force was removed from the junschction of OOAC on 19 November ?940. The effects o? this redivimon of responsibilities and functions were amehorated in part by the appoint- ment of General Arnold as Acting Deputy Chxef of Staff Ioz Air. Not until June of 1941, when the Army A?r Forces was cre- ated, did the Air Corps receive more autonomy and greater umty of command.?"? Many members of Congress became qmte concerned over the organizational status of the Army a?r arm when the GHQ A?r Force was removed from the administrative jurisdiction of OOAC and, as previously noted, w?thin the next seven months a to?al of 15 brim to free the Air Corps from War Department control was rotreduced in Con- gress None oœ these, however, emerged from committee. It has already been pointed out that the War Department was opposed to such legis- Iation and that Acting Secretary of War Patterson felt that any such drastic reor. ganization of the air arm would be a dangerous move to make in view of the existing emergency and the likelihood that it would delay or disrupt the expansion program Gert. George C. Marshall, Chief of Staff, expressed the opinion that the independent air forces of the European countries had not proved ?n World War II that they. were as effective as the American proponents of an independent air arm claimed they were. Pie felt that Germany's mfi?tary successes since the beginning of the war were not based on the operations of the GAF as an independent air arm, but on its subordination to the German Gem eral Staff. In his opimon the British RAP, organized as a distinctly independent air force, had appeared ineffective in the op- erations m Norway, Greece, North Africa, and Syria--this outcome being at least partrally attributable to the lack of unity of command which resulted in the failure of the RAF to cooperate with ground forces. ? There ?s evidence that President Roosevelt held essentially the same ?iews as General Marshall ?n regard to an inde- pendent air force. TM THIS PAGE Declasstried lAW EO12958