FREE BOOKS

Author's List




PREV.   NEXT  
|<   324   325   326   327   328   329   330   331   332   333   334   335   336   337   338   339   340   341   342   343   344   345   346   347   348  
349   350   351   352   353   354   355   356   357   358   359   360   361   362   363   364   365   366   367   368   369   370   371   372   373   >>   >|  
to the same set of social forces and all three suffered from race prejudice. They also faced in common a growing indifference to military careers on the part of talented young Negroes who in any case would have to compete with an aging but persistent group of less talented black professionals for a limited number of jobs. Of great importance was the fact that the racial practices of the armed forces were a product of the individual service's military traditions. Countless incidents support the contention that service traditions were a transcendent factor in military decisions. Marx Leva, Forrestal's assistant, told the story of a Forrestal subordinate who complained that some admirals were still opposed to naval aviation, to which Forrestal replied that he knew some admirals who still opposed steam engines.[9-1] Forrestal's humorous exaggeration underscored the tenacity of traditional attitudes in the Navy. Although self-interest could never be discounted as a motive, tradition also figured prominently, for example, in the controversy between proponents of the battleship and proponents of the aircraft carrier. Certainly the influence of tradition could be discerned in the antipathy of Navy officials toward racial change.[9-2] [Footnote 9-1: Interv, Lee Nichols with Marx Leva, 1953, in Nichols Collection, CMH.] [Footnote 9-2: On the survival of traditional attitudes in the Navy, see Karsten, _Naval Aristocracy_, ch. v; Waldo H. Heinricks, Jr., "The Role of the U.S. Navy," in Dorothy Borg and Shumpei Okamoto, eds., _Pearl Harbor as History_ (New York: Columbia University Press, 1973); David Rosenberg, "Arleigh Burke and Officer Development in the Inter-war Navy," _Pacific Historical Review_ 44 (November 1975).] The Army also had its problems with tradition. It endured tremendous inner conflict before it decided to drop the cavalry in favor of mechanized and armored units. Nor did the resistance to armor die quickly. Former Chief of Staff Peyton C. March reported that a (p. 235) previous Chief of Cavalry told him in 1950 that the Army had betrayed the horse.[9-3] President Roosevelt was also a witness to how military tradition frustrated attempts to change policy. He picked his beloved Navy to make the poi
PREV.   NEXT  
|<   324   325   326   327   328   329   330   331   332   333   334   335   336   337   338   339   340   341   342   343   344   345   346   347   348  
349   350   351   352   353   354   355   356   357   358   359   360   361   362   363   364   365   366   367   368   369   370   371   372   373   >>   >|  



Top keywords:
Forrestal
 

tradition

 
military
 

racial

 
traditional
 

attitudes

 

admirals

 
opposed
 

traditions

 

service


talented
 

Nichols

 

forces

 

Footnote

 

change

 
proponents
 

Development

 
Officer
 
Pacific
 

Aristocracy


Review

 

Historical

 

Heinricks

 

University

 

Columbia

 

Harbor

 

History

 

Rosenberg

 

Arleigh

 

Dorothy


Okamoto
 

Shumpei

 

tremendous

 
betrayed
 

Cavalry

 

previous

 

reported

 

President

 
Roosevelt
 
picked

beloved

 

policy

 
witness
 

frustrated

 

attempts

 

Peyton

 

conflict

 

decided

 

Karsten

 

endured