Page:Legislative History of the AAF and USAF.djvu/53

�This Page Declassified lAW EO12958 46 -- USAt? I-ImTO?Cm. STUOm? tillcry spotbrig, and tactical reconnaissance. Although this report was not accepted by Admiral Richardson, the comm?ttee's senior member, who opposed a single department of defense and a coordinate ah- force, it met the approval of GeneraL? of the Army Douglas MacArthur and Dwight D. Elsan. bower, Admirals Chester V. Nirnitz and William F. Halsey, and numerous other mili- tary and naval leaders. Th?s majority opin- ion in favor of un/fication was not reve?ed until well after the cessation of host?ht?es. a Another comrmttee to investigate and make a study of the question of consohda- tion of the armed services was set up by Secretary of Navy Forfestal in June 1945. This was done at the suggestion of Senator Dawd i. Walsh, chairman of the Senate Naval Affairs Committee, who felt that such a study might develop a form of reorganiza- tion and coordinatmn of the armed services which would avoid the undemrable (to the Navy) principle of consohdation and might even keep the War and Navy Departments separate. This committee was headed by Ferdinand Eberstadt, who had served with the War Production Board and other high level war agencies; it was staffed mainly vath naval personnel. Its report, submitted on 25 September 1945, counseled against a single department of national defense but recommended the organization of the na- tion's military and naval forces into tlxree coordinate branches; War, Navy, and Air. The newly created "Military Department for 2at" would leave to the Army and Navy those parhcular types of aviation act?wt?es peculiar to their needs. Instead of having a single civilian secretary over all of them, the three departments would have the Joint Chiefs of Staff as %he major link between them, and a system of committees to kmt f?em more closely together. Similar agen- cies, operating principally through a na- tional security counmI immediateIy under the President, would correlate the armed services with the civilian departments ?-' These recommendations were never enacted into legislation as such, but they probably had a considerable influence on subsequent legislation. On 6 January 1945, Senator Lister H?11 o? Alabama introduced a bill (S. 84) prorid. ing for a "Department of the Armed Forces," w?th a civilian secretary a? its head and consisting of three coordinate branches, Army, Navy, and Air. Each of the three coordinate branches was to be headed by an under secretary and two assistants. There was to be a United States chiefs of staff committee, composed of the Chiefs of Staff for each of the three branches, to carry on the functions of stratebqc, supply, and operational planning for all of the armed forces. There was also to be a three- for of supply (of general or flag rank) in charge of the conunon supply sources of the armed services. On 15 October 1945 Senator Edwin C. Johnson of Colorado and Senator Harley K?lgore of West V?rgima ?ntroduced a bill (S. 1482) which proposed to substitute a "Department of Military Security" for the War and Navy Departments. Th?s depart- ment was to be headed by a "Secretary of M?litary Security" appointed by the Prom- dent. It was broken down into six dlwsions, each headed by an under secretary. The dxvisions were. Smenhfic Research and De- velopment, Aeronautics, Army, Navy, Pro- curemerit, and M?litary Intelligence3 S The Senate Commxttee on Military M- fairs conducted extensxve hearings on these two unification b?11s. A long list of dis- tingrushed my, lien, military, and naval leaders testified on the question of consoli- dation and unification. The greater part of the opposition came from naval personnel. Secretary of Navy Forfestal opposed unifi- cation, saying that he was not yet ready to support the creation of a separate and co- equal department of air; however, he agreed with General Arnold that steps must be taken to prevent the AAF from reverting automa?mally to its prewar status. Admirals N?mitz and Halsey both spoke against um- fication, taking a stand wlnch was oddly at variance w?th their earlier support of "a single department system of organization of the armed forces. "a? The committee d?d not, however, submit a report on tlxe two brlls on which the hearings were basedS? During 1945 srx other bills dealing wath reorganization of the armed services (two THIS PAGE Declassified lAW E012958