MOBILIZATION OF CIVILIAN MANPOWER FRIDAY, FEBRUARY 16, 1945 UNITED STATES SENATE, COMMITTEE ON MILITARY AFFAIRS, Washington, D. C. The committee met, pursuant to adjournment, at 10:30 a. m., in the committee room of the Committee on Military Affairs, United States Capitol, Senator Edwin C. Johnson presiding. Present: Senators Johnson of Colorado (presiding), Hill, Chandler, Kilgore, O'Mahoney, Maybank, Austin, Gurney, and Burton. Senator JOHNSON. General, you may proceed in your own way. STATEMENT OF LT. GEN. THOMAS T. HANDY-Resumed General HANDY. In the first place, I would like to clarify and correct a statement I made yesterday. I stated that we had 750,000 limited-service men in the Army. That figure is for the people here in the United States, zone of interior operating personnel; it is not for the entire Army. We have not a definite record of how many limitedservice people are overseas, because they become limited-service, you see, (or limited assignment, as we call them, after they get there. I estimated yesterday that the number of overseas limited-assignment is probably 200 to 250 thousand. I think that is about right. But the 750,000 that I mentioned yesterday as total Army is not total Army, it is the total of limited-assignment for operating personnel in the United States. Senator JOHNSON. You mean that does include the combatant. I get the point now. General HANDY. No, sir. There are 750,000 of these limited-assignment people in the United States, in this zone of interior operating personnel. It does not include the ones overseas or those in the United States who are not operating personnel. Senator HILL. In other words, yesterday the general had a chart here which showed how many are in the United States. General HANDY. 1,365,000 in the operating personnel. Senator HILL. 1,365,000 in the operating personnel in the United States? General HANDY. Yes, sir. Senator JOHNSON. Limited service? General HANDY. No, no. Senator JOHNSON. Over-all? General HANDY. Yes. Senator HILL. What he is saying is 750,000 limited-service men are in the United States. General HANDY. That is right. In other words, 750,000 of those 1,365,000 operating personnel are limited-assignment men, as they call them now. Senator O'MAHONEY. The operating- personnel is that personnel which handles the training and administers arsenals, camps, replacement centers, and other military installations; is that right? General HANDY. Yes, sir; that is right. Senator JOHNSON. Now, General, there is a new policy, isn't there, of assigning limited-service personnel to foreign service to replace men who can go in combat? General HANDY. Yes, sir. Senator O'MAHONEY. How many of the 750,000 limited-service men in the United States were taken into the Army as limited-service men? General HANDY. Well, I do not believe I can answer that, Senator. You would have to trace back into the record. Quite a few were taken in, undoubtedly, and some became limited service undoubtedly after they went in. Senator JOHNSON. Over-age men, over certain ages? General HANDY. Yes, sir. Senator O'MAHONEY. What I am trying to develop now is the Army policy with respect to these limited-service men. General HANDY. Yes, sir. Senator O'MAHONEY. How many of them are brought in through the draft and are immediately found to be qualified only for limited service? How many are assigned to limited service later because of illness or injury or wounds that they sustain in the Army? How many are assigned to limited service because of age, and what efforts does the Army make to determine the capacities of these limited-service men, and are they assigned to the work for which they are best fitted? Now, for example, I have personal knowledge of the case of a man who was drafted from a mill in which he was employed as a skilled worker in wood. He had one eye, that is to say, he was blind in one eye. Well, now, he was put to work in the Army as a limited-service man digging ditches. Had he been permitted to remain in the industry in which he was, his skill could have been used in industry. In other words, the Army took this man, highly competent in an industrial service, and put him into limited service in the Army doing work that is far below his capacity. Now, I have heard of other cases, which I have not had a chance. to check, but I am told that men have been taken out of the arsenal, the naval arsenal here in Washington, the navy yard down here, who were skilled mechanics, inducted by their boards and sent to limitedservice work in military camps, where again the machinist skill so necessary for war production is being utterly neglected. So, I am asking you: Does the Army make any attempt to determine the skills and capacities of these limited-service people? How many of them, in other words, can you release to industry to meet this manpower need in industry? General HANDY. Well, you asked about the policy of the Army. Personnel, when brought in, is rated physically for the purpose of assignment on what is called a physical profile system. "A" would be perfect, and then it goes on down, "B," "C," and "D." This permits a more exact analysis of a man's physical capacity. The terms, "general assignment," and "limited assignment," are used to differentiate between men who meet present induction standards and those who do not. That is the present use of the term. The point to note is while we are taking only general assignment men into the Army at this time, this does not mean that all of these men have the stamina and other physical qualifications for combat soldiers-for infantrymen and air crew trainees. Another point to remember is this: Because a man is limited assignment does not mean he cannot go overseas. Some could do their jobs overseas just as well as they could do them here. You know it is the same kind of job, but some have defects which either permanently or temporarily disqualify them for overseas service. Now to be more specific, there is a great effort made to classify these men not only according to physical standards but according to skills. Actually at the present time we are getting to the point where we have about all the limited service people we can use. Do you see my point? Senator O'MAHONEY. Yes. Every military man says that. The Secretary of War says that. They say you do not want any more limited-service men. General HANDY. Yes, sir. Senator O'MAHONEY. And my question to you is: Since you now tell us that you have 750,000 limited-service men in the Army in the United States and since the Secretary of War and the Director of the War Production Board tell us that 700,000 men are needed in industry. the question arises, What has the Army done to see whether or not these 750,000 men in limited service in the Army can be utilized in industry? General HANDY. Well, you would have to replace them with other men. Senator O'MAHONEY. You would have to replace all of them? General HANDY. Yes, sir. We think that these 1,365,000, operating our zone of the interior, are necessary to do the job. Senator O'MAHONEY. General, are you telling me that every man in every Army post is busy all day long? General HANDY. No, sir. Senator O'MAHONEY. Doing essential work. General HANDY. No, sir; I am not. Senator O'MAHONEY. Of course, you are not. General HANDY. No, sir. Senator O'MAHONEY. Then I say, What effort has the Army made to determine how many of the 750,000 limited-service men can, to the benefit of the war effort, be taken out of the idleness that they may be in in the Army camp, or the low-grade work in which they may be engaged in the Army camp, and assigned, either by release or otherwise, to the skills for which they are capable? If they are capable, I do not know. I am just asking the question. General HANDY. Yes. I made a statement here to the committee yesterday in which I went at some length into some of the many things that have been done to see whether these men were needednot only these particular men, but all the men that we have, with particular reference to these installations here in the United States in which the 750,000 men that you are talking about are. Senator O'MAHONEY. General, so that there may be no misunderstanding, let me say here, as I said to the Secretary of War, I think the War Department has done a wonderful job, I think the General Staff has done a marvelous job, I take my hat off to you, but I realize that it is impossible for any group of men, however brilliant and able they may be, to bring millions of their fellow citizens suddenly into a new organization and train them immediately and do it efficiently. Now, it is also true with respect to civilian agencies. We set up the O. P. A., for example. Well, it took 2 or 3 years for the O. P. A. to settle down into anything like an operation that was acceptable to the people, because you just cannot suddenly turn a nation from peaceful pursuits into the pursuits of war under the direction of Army and Navy officials and under the direction of civilian agencies. What we are driving at here-at least what I am trying to develop now-is to what extent we can improve the wonderful work that the Army is doing. So I ask you, Would it not be a splendid thing if the General Staff should immediately order the head of every camp in the United States to make a survey of the skills of limited-service people so that you fellows in the General Staff may know what the situation is? General HANDY. As a matter of fact, Senator, as I said, I described here at some length yesterday the operation of the so-called Gasser board that was set up to do exactly that job. It has been set up now for 2 years, since early in 1943. General Gasser's people do just exactly what you are saying. They go through these establishments in the United States continuously; they have gone through probably 90 percent of the installations at least once, some a second time and some a third time. They have regional boards that operate directly under General Gasser. Now, they have developed well defined techniques, for they have been doing these things for 2 years. They go into a place and say, "Now, what is the job?" And when told what it is, they check on it, whatever the installation is, and then go through his personnel to see if he has too many or has too few to do that job. Allocations and ceilings are made continually on the basis of this board's findings. Senator O'MAHONEY. What is the end product? General HANDY. The end product is that in 18 months, in the last 18 months, those people have cut our operating installations in the United States down by about 245,000 military personnel. Senator O'MAHONEY. They cut them in what way? General HANDY. They have reduced them. There are that many fewer in these installations than there were 18 months ago. Senator O'MAHONEY. That means there is a better utilization of menpower? General HANDY. Yes, sir. Senator O'MAHONEY. That is fine. Now, then, let me ask you this question: Can you or General Gasser, or anybody else in the General Staff, tell this committee how many skilled machinists are among the 750,000 limited-service men now in the United States? General HANDY. That data, I think, could be obtained. I do not know that the Gasser Board has it on record. That would be a question for the personnel Division. Senator O'MAHONEY. That is the type of information which I suggest is of the highest importance that the General Staff or the personnel board or whoever does the job should immediately find out. Senator GURNEY. May I interrupt there with this question? The Gasser board has cut to a minimum the number of personnel at each Army post. Now, if we should find 100,000 skilled machinists, or skilled in any trade, in the 750,000 still in the United States in the limited service, and we said, "All right, the Army is going to discharge them, send them back into industry," what would happen then? General HANDY. Well, you would have to replace those men some way or another. Furthermore, you could not replace them with run-of-the-mine men; not all of them. Senator O'MAHONEY. You would only have to replace those who were doing essential work in the Army? General HANDY. Yes, sir. Senator O'MAHONEY. And in response to my question of a moment ago, you acknowledge that of course there are men in the Army who are not busy all day every day? General HANDY. Yes, sir. Senator HILL. General, in that connection, isn't it true that there is perhaps more waste in officers than among the enlisted personnel? Now, isn't it true that you have some officers who were perhaps in the Coast Artillery, or antiaircraft, or some other outfit, who had been classed to the Infantry but the Infantry is not using them, does not want them, and some of them are sitting around doing nothing? You have situations like this, which I can understand: Haven't you got officers who are assigned to your contract termination sections? You see here last fall, early fall, we thought very likely the war was going to be over, that there was going to be a lot of termination of contracts and you had to get ready. There is no criticism of that. Are not there some officers sitting around on the contract termination matter who are not busy because there are not any contract terminations? You step on the gas the other way now. General HANDY. I want to make something plain here. Senator O'Mahoney said I admitted not every man was busy all day. I did. I do not think anybody can say every man is absolutely busy every day or that he should be. I am not attempting to say, in handling 8,000,000 people, that everyone works 12 or 14 hours a day or that every single man is handled in the most effective way. Senator O'MAHONEY. There is no criticism at all. General HANDY. There has been a real effort made to use these people in the most effective way. Senator O'MAHONEY. I do not have the slightest doubt of it. Senator O'MAHONEY. Sure, and I compliment you for what you have done, sir, but here is the specific question: How many skilled men now needed in industrial production are in limited service in the Army doing a much less important job? There is your question. General HANDY. That would be a very difficult question to answer. As a general rule, I think you would find that if the man is a machinist, or if he is a mechanic, he probably would be on that kind of work in the Army, because there is a great demand for them, regardless of whether he is limited assignment or not. Senator O'MAHONEY. But I gave you instances to the contrary, don't you see? General HANDY. Yes, sir. |