, Office of Foreign Military Affairs,
OSD, 7 Jul 49, sub: Foreign Assignments of Negro
Personnel, PPB 291.2 (7 Jul 49).]
The interservice and departmental aspects of the problem involved
Secretary of Defense Johnson. Following promulgation of his directive
on racial equality and at the instigation of his Personnel Policy
Board and his assistant, Najeeb Halaby, Johnson asked the Secretary of
State for a formal expression of views on the use of black troops in a
lengthy list of countries.[15-23] Such an expression was clearly
necessary, as Air Force spokesmen pointed out. Informed of the
consultations, Assistant Secretary Zuckert asked that an interim
policy be formulated, so urgent had the problem become in the Air
Force where new racial policies and assignments were under way.[15-24]
[Footnote 15-23: Ltr, SecDef to Secy of State, 14 Sep
49, CD 30-1-4, SecDef files.]
[Footnote 15-24: Memo, Asst SecAF for Chmn, PPB, 16
Sep 49, sub: Assignment of Negroes to Overseas
Areas; Memo, Dir of Staff, PPB, for Asst SecAF, 28
Sep 49, same sub; Memo, Asst SecAF for Chmn, PPB,
12 Oct 49, same sub. All in SecAF files.]
For his part the Secretary of State had no objection to stationing
Negroes in any of the listed countries. In fact, Under Secretary James
E. Webb assured Johnson, the State Department welcomed the new Defense
Department policy of equal treatment and opportunity as a step toward
the achievement of the nation's foreign policy objectives. At the same
time Webb admitted that there were certain countries--he listed
specifically Iceland, Greenland, Canada, Newfoundland, Bermuda, and
British possessions in the Caribbean--where local attitudes might
affect the morale of black troops and their relations with the
inhabitants. The State Department, therefore, preferred advance
warning when the services planned to assign Negroes to these countries
so that it might consult the host governments and reduce "possible
complications" to a minimum.[15-25]
[Footnote 15-25: Ltr, James E. Webb to Louis Johnson,
17 Oct 49; Memo, SecDef for SA et al., 27 Oct 49;
both in CD 30-1-4, SecDef files.]
This policy definition did not end the matter. In the first place the
State Department decided not to restrict its
|