State - Deferments, January-February 1944

PSF State Dept. Deferments Jan.-Feb. 1944 1944 PSF State THE WHITE HOUSE 821 altiguther WASHINGTON foreyou Lane 303 Freign sense under38 54 already disappond 70 Department down turned Want it intact PSF 24 423 State 70 198 94 February 9, 1944 My dear Mr. President: With reference to our correspondence regarding the Selective Service status of Foreign Service personnel, I am pleased that the importance this Department places on the retention of its numerically small group of permanent Foreign Service Officers has been quite generally recognized. I note with concern, however, that the Review Committee has recently dis- approved a number of junior Foreign Service Officers who are essential to this Department's war activities and who are irreplaceable under war conditions. The Department has made a study of all male Foreign Service personnel of military age with a view to releas- ing all who could be spared. Out: of the 494 cases re- viewed, this Department's Agency Committee approved 281 requests for deferment (57%), and disapproved 213 (43%), of which 68 were deferrable on physical or other non- occupational grounds and 145 have been or are to be released when called for induction. Since December 7, 1941, 227 Foreign Service personnel of military age were released up to January 31, 1944, and in addition 125, who have been disapproved for occupational deferment, will be released when called, making a total of 352, of the 423 Foreign Service personnel of all categories who are now deferred on occupational grounds, 191 are Foreign Service officers. Thus the Department has made a sincere endeavor to cooperate with the Selective Se: rice authorities by anticipating the standards of the Review Committee, and has made considerable sacrifices to this end. The release of 80 many men from our Foreign Service, which was already understaffed, has ocpasioned considerable inconvenience, but it was hoped That, by retaining the permanent officers, the necessary adjustments could be made without impairing function essential to the war effort. The President, The White House. -2- effort. I am convinced, however, that this cannot be done without the assistance of all available permanent officers, who form the backbone of the Foreign Service. Their training, experience and general competence make them indispensable. As stated in my letter of October 5, 1943, the ability of the Department to fulfill its responsibilities in the war depends on retaining the limited supply of specially selected professional officers. There is a particularly acute shortage of junior officers. Although the period of their service may be relatively short, they make a valuable and essential contribution because of the qualifications on the basis of which they were selected; and, as their experience grows, their value is increasing, All are now doing responsible and necessary work. In fact, there is a greater demand for competent junior officers than for men of senior rank. Normally the Service recruits from 40 to 50 officers each year; 46 were admitted in 1940; 46 in 1941; and 35, who passed the examination in 1941, were commissioned in 1942. These officers had shaped their education for the preceding four to six years to prepare themselves for a Foreign Service career. Now the supply is cut off and the Service is shrinking due to deaths and retirements in the face of increasing re- sponsibilities. In order for the Department to meet these growing responsibilities, the Foreign Service must not only have an adequate supply of professional officers but its morale must be maintained at a high level. Up to the present time the excellent morale of Foreign Service personnel has been based primarily upon the conviction that they were performing work vital to the successful prosecution of the war. A considerable number have been subjected to the dangers and privations of war at some time or other since hostilities commenced in the Far East in 1937 and in Europe in 1939, and all are willing and anxious to serve wherever they can be of maximum usefulness. Many of the younger members of the Service asked to be released in order that they might enter the armed forces, and all applications were carefully considered in order to determine whether the applicants would be of greater value in the armed forces than in the Foreign Service. The number was 80 large that the Foreign Service was -3- was threatened with complete disruption at a time when it had work of vital importance to perform, Officers of military age were not denied their right of appeal, but it was pointed out to them in all sincerity that they not only are considered essential to the war effort in their present positions, but, in view of their irreplaceability under present conditions, they should remain in the Service as a matter of duty irrespective of their personal feelings. The Department accordingly would be placed in a most embarrassing position if the constituted authorities do not agree with the Department's view that the services of the officers concerned are essential, and it would find it extremely difficult to take any course other than to grant requests for a release hereafter. The combined result of losses of those whose occupational deferments are not approved and those to whom releases could not well be refused would impair seriously the Department's ability to meet its essential responsibilities. While the loss of essential personnel would be very serious, I am even more concerned over the effect it would have on the morale of these public servants who have been making such an important contribution to the war effort. An in- crease in this Department's responsibilities as the war progresses is inevitable, and I am particularly anxious that the Foreign Service should not be weakened at this time. I submit a list of persons recently disapproved by the Review Committee, all of whom I regard as essential to war-connected activities of the Foreign Service. These comprise 17 Foreign Service Officers, several Foreign Service code clerks at remote or extremely difficult posts, and several diplomatic couriers. I have not included persons filling positions which can be dispensed with or filled by persons not eligible for military service. Each of the cases on the attached list is being submitted to you on appeal in a separate communication for consideration on its individual merits. The present letter was con- sidered necessary, however, in order to give a report on the total number of Foreign Service personnel released pursuant to your letters of September 28 and October 25, 1943, and to discuss in general the serious effect the loss of essential personnel at this time might be ex- pected to have. Sincerely yours, CORDELL HULL FOREIGN SERVICE OFFICERS WHOSE CASES HAVE BEEN DISAPPROVED BY THE REVIEW COMMITTEE OF THE WAR MANPOWER COMMISSION Date of Name Post Age Appointment Gannett, Michael R. Nadras, India 24 12/8/41 Rosenberg, William S. La Paz, Bolivia 25 11/4/42 Godley, George M Palerino Blue, William L Palgring With Bern, Switzerland 26 3/20/41 Siudad Belivar, Venezuela 29 3/20/41 Burns, Findley, Jr. happen Madrid, Spain 26 2/20/42 Carnahan, George Barranquilla, Colombia 29 5/18/42 Green, Caspar D. Concepcion, Chile 28 3/20/41 Greene, Joseph No algien Ottawa, Canada 23 12/18/41 Lee, Armistead M. Dakar, French W. Africa 27 2/20/42 Lutkins, LaRue R. Habana, Cuba, under 24 2/20/42 Martin, Edward WITH W, Leopsldville assignment to Chungking Hamilton, Bermuda 26 3/20/41 Poole, Richard A. Barcelona, Spain 24 3/20/41 Rockwell, Stuart W. Panama, Panama, under (1/5/44) 27 3/20/41 Sparks, Joseph 8. Karachi assignment to Algiors Babanay Cuba 27 12/19/41 Wanamaker, Allison T., Jr. Bilbao, Spain 25 3/20/41 Williams, William L.S. Seport Caraoas, Venezuela 24 2/20/42 CODE CLERKS WHOSE CASES HAVE BEEN DISAPPROVED BY THE REVIEW COMMITTEE OF THE WAR MANPOWER COMMISSION Southerland, John Harlan Addis Ababa, Ethiopia 25 7/7/41 Weldon, Walter Bruce Ankara, Turkey 30 4/16/41 Cohagen, John A. Moscow, U.S.S.R. 22 1/5/42 Whitney, Henry McA. Kabul, Afghanistan 29 7/7/43 Howell, James Austin Bern, Switzerland 27 3/19/41 DIPLOMATIC COURIERS WHOSE CASES HAVE BEEN DISAPPROVED BY THE REVIEW COMMITTEE OF THE WAR MANPOWER COMMISSION Mueller, Paul H. Rio de Janeiro, 26 6/26/41 covering South America French, Harry George Cairo 25 2/16/42 Middle East Mr. Musller serves in addition as Communications Officer, with responsibility for the supervision of the Courier Service in the area mentioned, PSF 2-VV THE WHITE HOUSE Infidential feb WASHINGTON February 17, 1944 MEMORANDUM FOR THE PRESIDENT. The attached letter from the Department of State, which you sent me, is an appeal from a decision of the Review Committee on Government Deferments which has de- clined deferment for 23 employees of the State Department. The list of these employees with their present post, age, marital status and date of appointment in the Department is attached. I have had a long hearing on these cases in which the Department of State was represented by Assistant Secretary Howland Shaw and Mr. Davis, and the Review Committee was represented by its Chairman, Mr. Puryear, and Mr. Schartle. The Department of State contends that its "Foreign Service Officers" should be deferred as a group because they are engaged in war work and have taken special train- ing and passed special exams for this purpose. I do not think that they are entitled to deferment as a group. If you will notice, none of them has any pre- Pearl Harbor children and they range from 23 years of age to 29. The youngest, 23 years, was appointed 2 years ago when he was only 21 and the oldest was appointed almost 3 years ago when he was 26. I do not think these young men, many of whom are single or just married, should be deferred while fathers are being drafted in government and out of government. The only basis that I can see for deferment of some of them is that they are stationed at places which have been described as having very difficult climates so that older men or women could not serve. I do not think that any of the 5 Code Clerks should be deferred. They are all single ranging from 22 to 30 and have been deferred for some time. The 2 Couriers might be deferred on the basis of very confidential work and the necessity of strong physical condition. I would like to spend 5 minutes running over this list with you. I have a file on each of these men. 8m S. I. R. ADDRESS OFFICIAL COMMUNICATIONS TO THE SECRETARY OF STATE WASHINGTON, D. c. saves DEPARTMENT OF STATE WASHINGTON February 9, 1944 My dear Mr. President: With reference to our correspondence regarding the Selective Service status of Foreign Service personnel, I am pleased that the importance this Department places on the retention of its numerically small group of permanent Foreign Service Officers has been quite generally recognized. I note with concern, however, that the Review Committee has recently dis- approved a number of junior Foreign Service Officers who are essential to this Department's war activities and who are irreplaceable under war conditions. The Department has made a study of all male Foreign Service personnel of military age with a view to releas- ing all who could be replaced. Out of the 494 cases re- viewed, this Department's Agency Committee approved 281 requests for deferment (57%), and disapproved 213 (43%), of which 68 were deferrable on physical or other non- occupational grounds and 145 have been or are to be released when called for induction. Since December 7, 1941, 227 Foreign Service personnel of military age were released up to January 31, 1944, and in addition 125, who have been disapproved for occupational deferment, will be released when called, making a total of 352. of the 423 Foreign Service personnel of all categories who are now deferred on occupational grounds, 191 are Foreign Service Officers. Thus the Department has made a sincere endeavor to cooperate with the Selective Service authorities by anticipating the standards of the Review Committee, and has made considerable sacrifices to this end. The release of so many men from our Foreign Service, which was already understaffed, has occasioned considerable inconvenience, but it was hoped that, by retaining the permanent officers, the necessary adjustments could be made without impairing functions essential to the war effort. The President, The White House. -2- effort. I an convinced, however, that this cannot be done without the assistance of all available permanent officers, who form the backbone of the Foreign Service. Their training, experience and general competence make them indispensable. As stated in my letter of October 5, 1943, the ability of the Department to fulfill its responsibilities in the war depends on retaining the limited supply of specially selected professional officers. There is a particularly acute shortage of junior officers. Although the period of their service may be relatively short, they make a valuable and essential contribution because of the qualifications on the basis of which they were selected; and, as their experience grows, their value is increasing. All are now doing responsible and necessary work. In fact, there is & greater demand for competent junior officers than for men of senior rank. Normally the Service recruits from 40 to 50 officers each year; 46 were admitted in 1940; 46 in 1941; and 35, who passed the examination in 1941, were commissioned in 1942. These officers had shaped their education for the preceding four to six years to prepare themselves for a Foreign Service career. Now the supply is out off and the Service is shrinking due to deaths and retirements in the face of increasing re- sponsibilities. In order for the Department to meet these growing responsibilities, the Foreign Service must not only have an adequate supply of professional officers but its morale must be maintained at a high level. Up to the present time the excellent morale of Foreign Service personnel has been based primarily upon the conviction that they were performing work vital to the successful prosecution of the war. A considerable number have been subjected to the dangers and privations of war at some time or other since hostilities commenced in the Far East in 1937 and in Europe in 1939, and all are willing and anxious to serve wherever they can be of maximum usefulness. Many of the younger members of the Service asked to be released in order that they might enter the armed forces, and all applications were carefully considered in order to determine whether the applicants would be of greater value in the armed forces than in the Foreign Service. The number was 80 large that the Foreign Service was -3- was threatened with complete disruption at a time when it had work of vital importance to perform. Officers of military age were not denied their right of appeal, but it was pointed out to them in all sincerity that they not only are considered essential to the war effort in their present positions, but, in view of their irreplaceability under present conditions, they should remain in the Service as a matter of duty irrespective of their personal feelings. The Department accordingly would be placed in a most embarrassing position if the constituted authorities do not agree with the Department's view that the services of the officers concerned are essential, and it would find it extremely difficult to take any course other than to grant requests for a release hereafter. The combined result of losses of those whose occupational deferments are not approved and those to whom releases could not well be refused would impair seriously the Department's ability to meet its essential responsibilities. While the loss of essential personnel would be very serious, I am even more concerned over the effect it would have on the morale of these public servants who have been making such an important contribution to the war effort. An in- crease in this Department's responsibilities as the war progresses is inevitable, and I am particularly anxious that the Foreign Service should not be weakened at this time. I submit a list of persons recently disapproved by the Review Committee, all of whom I regard as essential to war-connected activities of the Foreign Service. These comprise 16 Foreign Service Officers, several Foreign Service code clerks at remote or extremely difficult posts, and several diplomatic couriers. I have not included persons filling positions which can be dispensed with or filled by persons not eligible for military service. Each of the cases on the attached list is being submitted to you on appeal in a separate communication for consideration on its individual merits. The present letter was con- sidered necessary, however, in order to give a report on the total number of Foreign Service personnel released pursuant to your letters of September 28 and October 25, 1943, and to discuss in general the serious effect the loss of essential personnel at this time might be ex- pected to have. Sincerely yours, Enclosure: List FOREIGN SERVICE OFFICERS WHOSE CASES HAVE BEEN DISAPPROVED BY THE REVIEW COMMITTEE OF THE WAR MANPOWER COMMISSION Date of Name Post Age Appointment 1 Gannett, Michael R. Madras, India 24 M.lc 12/ 8/41 2 Rosenberg, William S. La Paz, Bolivia 25 M. 11/ 4/42 3 Godley, George M. Bern, Switzerland 26 S. 3/20/41 4 Blue, William L. Ciudad Bolivar, Venezuela 29 S. 3/20/41 5 Burns, Findley, Jr. Madrid, Spain 26 S. 2/20/42 6 Carnahan, George Barranquilla, Colombia 29 M. 5/12/42 7 Green, Caspar D. Concepcion, Chile 28 M.lc a 3/20/41 8 Greene, Joseph N. Ottawa, Canada 23 M.lc al2/18/41 9 Lee, Armistead M. Dakar, French W. Africa 27 M. 2/20/42 10 Lutkins, LaRue R. Habana, Cuba, under 24 M. 2/20/42 assignment to Chungking 11 Martin, Edward W. Hamilton, Bermuda 26 M. 3/20/41 12 Poole, Richard A. Barcelona, Spain 24 S. 3/20/41 13 Rockwell, Stuart W. Panama, Panama, under 27 S. 3/20/41 assignment to Algiers 14 Sparks, Joseph S. Habana, Cuba 27 M. 12/19/41 15 Wanamaker, Allison T., Jr. Bilbao, Spain 25 S. 3/20/41 16 Williams, William L.S. Caracas, Venezuela 24 S. 2/20/42 CODE CLERKS WHOSE CASES HAVE BEEN DISAPPROVED BY THE REVIEW COMMITTEE OF THE WAR MANPOWER COMMISSION 17 Southerland, John Harlan Addis Ababa, Ethiopia 25 S. 7/41 18 Weldon, Walter Bruce Ankara, Turkey 30 S. 4/16/41 19 Cohagen, John A. Moscow, U.S.S.R. 22 S. 1/ 5/42 20 Whitney, Henry McA. Kabul, Afghanistan 29 S. 7/7/43 21 Howell, James Austin Bern, Switzerland 27 S. 3/19/41 DIPLOMATIC COURIERS WHOSE CASES HAVE BEEN DISAPPROVED BY THE REVIEW COMMITTEE OF THE WAR MANPOWER COMMISSION 22 Mueller, Paul H. Rio de Janeiro, 26 S. 6/26/41 covering South America 23 French, Harry George Cairo 25 S. 2/16/42 Middle East Mr. Mueller serves in addition as Communications Officer, with responsibility for the supervision of the Courier Service in the area mentioned. PSF state THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE WASHINGTON February 19, 1944 file Dear Judge, I have just received a verbel report from those present at the meeting held in your office on the 16th on Foreign Service deferment cases. I want to express to you on behalf of the State Department my appreciation for your sympathetic understanding. The State Department representatives were greatly impressed by your broad and impartial point of view on the problem. with best wishes, Sincerely yours, The Honorable En Samuel I. Rosenman The White House Washington, D. C. file MEMO FOR THE FILES SIR discussed these deferments 2/22/44 with the President in the presence of Under Secretary Stettinius. PSF state February 22, 1944 Honorable Edgar 3. Puryear, Chairman, Review Committee on Deferment of Government Employees, 1413 War Manpower Commission, Washington, D. C. and Honorable G. Howland Shaw, Chairman, Agency Committee on Deferments, Department of State, Washington, D. C. Gentlemen: The President has reviewed the appeal taken by the Department of State from the decision of the Review Committee on Deferment of Government Employees involving sixteen Foreign Service Officers, five code clerks and two couriers. x67 His conclusion 1s that only one of them be deferred, to wit, Mr. William L. Blue stationed at Ciudad Boliver in Venezuela. X Very sincerely, SAMUEL I. ROSENMAN Special Counsel to the President X 20 X1413-D.Review x252 Committee freder X 1413-D - agency Committee forder February 22, 1944 Honorable G. Howland Shaw, Chairman, Agency Committee on Deferments, Department of State, Washington, D. C. and Honorable Edgar 3. Puryear, Chairman, Review Committee on Deferment of Government Employees, War Manpower Commission, Washington, D. C. Gentlemen: The President has reviewed the appeal taken by the Department of State from the decision of the Review Committee on Deferment of Government Employees involving sixteen Foreign Service Officers, five code clerks and two couriers. H1s conclusion is that only one of them be deferred, to wit, Mr. William L. Blue stationed at Ciudad Bolivar in Venezuela. Very sincerely, SAMUEL I. ROSENMAN Special Counsel to thery 22, 1944 President February 17, 1944 MEMORANDUM FOR THE PRESIDENT. The attached letter from the Department of State, which you sent me, is an appeal from a decision of the Review Committee on Government Deferments which has de- clined deferment for 23 employees of the State Department. The list of these employees with their present post, age, marital status end date of appointment in the Department is attached. I have had a long hearing on these cases in which the Department of State was represented by Assistant Secretary Howland Shaw and Mr. Davis, and the Review Committee was represented by its Chairman, Mr. Puryear, and Mr. Schartle. The Department of State contends that its "Foreign Service Officers" should be deferred as a group because they are engaged in war work and have taken special train- ing and passed special exams for this purpose. I do not think that they are entitled to deferment as a group. If you will notice, none of them has any pre- Pearl Harbor children and they range from 23 years of age to 29. The youngest, 23 years, was appointed 2 years ago when he was only 21 and the oldest was appointed almost 3 years ago when he was 26. I do not think these young men, many of whom are single or just married, should be deferred while fathers are being drafted in government and out of government. The only basis that I can see for deferment of some of them is that they are stationed at places which have been described as having very difficult climates so that older men or women could not serve. I do not think that any of the 5 Code Clerks should be deferred. They are all single ranging from 22 to 30 and have been deferred for some time. The 2 Couriers might be deferred on the basis of very confidential work and the necessity of strong physical condition. I would like to spend 5 minutes running over this list with you. I have a file on each of these men. S. I. R. POSSIBLE DEFERMENTS 1. Gannett ( - Madras, India 2. Rosenberg < - La Paz, Bolivia 4. Blue, Wm. L. - Ciudad Bolivar, Venezuela 015 6. Carnahan, G. - Barranquilla, 9. Lee - Dakar 10. Lutkin - Chungking 11. Martin - Leopoldville, Belgian Congo 14. Sparks - Karachi or Calcutta, India notal 16. Williams - Caracas (spell with La Guyara & Ciudad Bolivar) 22, Couriers -- hard physical work and confidential nature 1 Bad lumate. - others there = predecessor bad hearth result of X has m us. 2 11000 fees Aerrice hegh. most mhealthful in in Lapaz 3 Yod ley brlated in EngulanA 4 Bar climate Opinio Rind -sea leml - malina + depenting in Verguely 5 - how in thank 2 Bad climate - Barmanguilla 7 not Gn ther for + opened at request of Many in Chile different chinate 8 ho leason - how transferred t alpens (In 96mg) 9 how in Tamto - adwal 15Dahar 10 To be transferred Changlong 11 In Bermida now - lsee us renom for this In Barcelma nmr Mm transfered T Belqua tryo 17 13 her us /Low - Transferred talgers 14 ho reason hue Kow handurg To Karachi, N WASH Calcutta, hd 15 how in spain 12, 1944 16 Canacas - Speel with Each at Campato + La Guaya X Curdad Bohnard but malana ant Dead Judge Reserving The these Arraign Service Stituse vehicles the yesterCay afternoon NOSA dome musts trexe 2023 END proprists - been brown as follows Code Cluses - Tabas 9 mos to Joseph R. Speens, 3rd learn them 80 17 Whiopia Control Advisors of Constitution the United for states DE Indy. #: 8 ankana Mortin Congos Bezattän to 19 Moscar 5. Calourin, India, NATURN born to of which additional visions per 20 Bern afghaimstan hearing which you ERVS to Note 3 117 how much we 955 - 21 Sincerely yours, s a Howland Show 22, one 3 mos requested job ng for againational Judge Sentel In The white 23 Canners very Bush i)B as tolay all Eh. Tea Watch ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF STATE WASHINGTON February 17, 1944 Dear Judge Rosenman: The three Foreign Service Officers whom we discussed yesterday afternoon and whose present posts were felt inappropriate have been trans- ferred as follows: Joseph N. Greene, Jr. -- Ottawa to Algiers (eventually Italy) to serve on the staff of the United States Member of the Advisory Council to the Allied Control Commission for Italy. Edwin W. Martin - Bermuda to Leopoldville, Belgian Congo. X Joseph S. Sparks - Habana to Karachi, India or Calcutta, India, both of which require additional officer personnel. May I say how much we appreciated the care- ful hearing which you gave to us. Sincerely yours, 5.Howlund flaw. G. Howland Shaw Judge Samuel I. Rosenman, The White House. February 9, 1944 My dear Mr. President: with reference to our correspondence regarding the Selective Service status of Foreign Service personnel, I am pleased that the importance this Department places on the retention of its numerically small group of permanent Foreign Service Officers has been quite generally recognized. I note with concern, however, that the Review Committee has recently dis- approved a number of junior Foreign Service Officers who are essential to this Department's war activities and who are irreplaceable under war conditions. The Department has made a study of all male Foreign Service personnel of military age with a view to releas- ing all who could be replaced. Out of the 494 cases re- viewed, this Department's Agency Committee approved 281 requests for deferment (57%), and disapproved 213 (43%), of which 68 were deferrable on physical or other non- occupational grounds and 145 have been or are to be released when called for induction. Since December 7, 1941, 227 Foreign Service personnel of military age were released up to January 31, 1944, and in addition 125, who have been disapproved for occupational deferment, will be released when called, making a total of 352. of the 423 Foreign Service personnel of all categorios who are now deferred on occupational grounds, 191 are Foreign Service officers. Thus the Department has made a sincere endeavor to cooperate with the Selective Service authorities by anticipating the standards of the Review Committee, and has made considerable sacrifices to this end. The release of so many men from our Foreign Service, which was already understaffed, has occasioned considerable inconvenience, but it was hoped that, by retaining the permanent officers, the necessary adjustments could be made without impairing functions essential to the war effort. The President, The White House. effort. I as convinced, however, that this cannot be done without the assistance of all available permanent officers, who form the backbone of the Foreign Service. Their training, experience and general competence make them indispensable. As stated in my letter of October 5, 1943, the ability of the Department to fulfill its responsibilities in the war depends on retaining the limited supply of specially selected professional officers. There is a particularly acute shortage of junior officers. Although the period of their service may be relatively short, they make a valuable and essential contribution because of the qualifications on the basis of which they were selected; and, as their experience grows, their value is increasing. All are now doing responsible and necessary work. In fact, there is a greater demand for competent junior officers than for men of senior rank. Normally the Service recruits from 40 to 50 officers each year; 46 were admitted in 1940; 46 in 1941; and 35, who passed the examination in 1941, were commissioned in 1942. These officers had shaped their education for the preceding four to six years to prepare themselves for a Foreign Service oareer. Now the supply is out off and the Service is shrinking due to deaths and retirements in the face of increasing re- In order for the Department to meet these growing responsibilities, the Foreign Service must not only have an adequate supply of professional officers but its morale must be maintained at a high level. Up to the present time the excellent morale of Foreign Service personnel has been based primarily upon the conviction that they were performing work vital to the successful prosecution of the war. A considerable number have been subjected to the dangers and privations of war at some time or other since hostilities commenced in the Far East in 1937 and in Europe in 1939, and all are willing and anxious to serve wherever they can be of maximum usefulness. Many of the younger members of the Service asked to be released in order that they might enter the armed forces, and all applications were carefully considered in order to determine whether the applicants would be of greater value in the armed forces than in the Foreign Service. The number was so large that the Foreign Service was -3- was threatened with complete disruption at a time when it had work of vital importance to perform. Officers of military age were not denied their right of appeal, but it was pointed out to them in all sincerity that they not only are considered essential to the war effort in their present positions, but, in view of their irreplaceability under present conditions, they should remain in the Service as a matter of duty irrespective of their personal feelings. The Department accordingly would be placed in a most embarrassing position if the constituted authorities do not agree with the Department's view that the services of the officers concerned are essential, and it would find 1b extremely difficult to take any course other than to grant requests for a release hereafter. The combined result of losses of those whose occupational deferments are not approved and those to whom releases could not well be refused would impair seriously the Department's ability to meet its essential responsibilities. While the loss of essential personnel would be very serious, I an even more concerned over the effect it would have on the morale of these public servants who have been making such an important contribution to the war effort. An in- crease in this Department's responsibilities as the war progresses is inevitable, and I am particularly anxious that the Foreign Service should not be weakened at this time. I submit a list of persons recently disapproved by the Review Committee, all of whom I regard as essential to war-connected activities of the Foreign Service. These comprise 16 Foreign Service Officers, several Foreign Service code clerks at remote or extremely difficult posts, and several diplomatic couriers. I have not included persons filling positions which can be dispensed with or filled by persons not eligible for military service. Each of the cases on the attached list is being submitted to you on appeal in a separate communication for consideration on its individual merits. The present letter was con- sidered necessary, however, in order to give a report on the total number of Foreign Service personnel released pursuant to your letters of September 28 and October 25, 1943, and to discuss in general the serious effect the loss of essential personnel at this time might be ex- pected to have. Sincerely yours, CORDELL HULL FA:MBD:AMD:NA 2/7/44 can DISAPPROVED BY THE REVIEW COMMITTEE OF THE WAR MANPOWER COMMISSION Date of Name Post Age Appointment Gannett, Michael R. Madras, India 24 12/ 8/41 Rosenberg, William S. La Pas, Bolivia 25 11/ 4/42 Godley, George M. Bern, Switzerland 26 3/20/41 Blue, William L. Ciudad Bolivar, Venezuela 29 3/20/41 Burns, Findley, Jr. Madrid, Spain 26 2/20/42 Carnahan, George Barranquilla, Colombia 29 5/12/42 Green, Caspar D. Concepcion, Chile 28 3/20/41 Greene, Joseph N. Ottawa, Canada (Trem 23 12/18/41 Leo, Armistend M. Dakar, French W. 27 2/20/42 Lutkins, LaRue R. Habana, Cuba, under 24 2/20/42 assignment to Chungking Martin, Edward W. Hamilton, Bermuda 26 3/20/41 Poole, Richard A. Barcelona, Spain help 24 3/20/61 Rockwell, Stuart W. Panama, Panama, under 27 3/20/41 assignment to Algiers Sparks, Joseph 8. Habana, Cuba (Tram to Karachi 27 12/19/41 Wanamaker, Allison T., Jr. Bilbao, Spain calcula) 25 3/20/41 Williams, William L.S. Caracas, Venezuela 24 2/20/42 CODE CLERKS WHOSE CASES HAVE BEEN DISAPPROVED BY THE REVIEW COMMITTEE OF THE WAR MANPOWER COMMISSION Southerland, John Harlan Addis Ababa, Ethiopia 25 7/ 7/41 Weldon, Walter Bruce Ankara, Turkey 30 4/16/41 Cohagen, John A. Mossow, U.S.S.R. 22 1/ 5/42 Whitney, Henry MOA. Kabul, Afghanistan 29 71 7/43 Howell, James Austin Bern, Switzerland 27 3/19/41 DIPLOMATIC COURIERS WHOSE CASES HAVE BEEN DISAPPROVED BY THE REVIEW COMMITTEE OF THE WAR MANPOWER COMMISSION Mueller, Paul H. Rio de Janeiro, 26 6/26/41 covering South America French, Harry George Cairo 25 2/16/42 Middle East Mr. Mueller serves in addition as Communications Officer, with responsibility for the supervision of the Courier Service in the area mentioned. BEB 11 1944 STATE DEPARTMENT The following cases sent to Judge Rosenman by special messenger at his request- Martin, Edward Webb Age 26, Vice Counsul, Consulate General, Hamilton, Bermuda Disapproved Poole, Richard A., Age 24, Vice Consul, Consulate General, Disapproved Barcelona, Spain- Rockwell, Stuart Wesson, Age 26, third secretary and Vice Consul, Embassy, Panama Disapproved Wanamaker, Allison Temple, Jr. Age 25, Vice Consul, Bilbao, Spain Disapproved Whitney, Henry McAlpin, Age 29, Clerk, Legation, Kabul, Afghanistan Disapproved Southerland, John H. Age 25, Clerk, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia-Diapproved 1 Rosenberg, William S., Age 25, Vice Consul & 3d Sec. Embassy, La Par-Disapproved French, Harry George, Age 25, Courier, Cairo-Disapproved Howell, James Austin, Age 27, Clerk, Legation, Bern-Disapproved Lee, Armistead M., Age 27, Vice Consul, American Mission, Dakar-Disapproved Blue, William L. Age 29, Vice Consulate, Ciudad Bolivar, Nevezuela-Disapproved Cohagen, John A. Age 22, Foreign Service Clerk, Embassy, Moscow-Disapproved Green, Caspar Dunham, Age 28, Vice Consul, Vice Consulate, Concepcion-Disapproved Greene, Joseph N. Jr. Age 23, 3d Secretary and Vice Consul, Legation, Disapproved Ottawa- Sparks, Joseph S., Age 27, FSO, Embassy, Habana-Disapproved Williams, William L. S. Age 24, Vice Consul, Caracas-Disapproved Lutkins, LaRue R. Age 24, Vice Consul, Habana-Disapproved Weldon, Walter Brice, Age 30, Clerk, Embassy, Ankara-Disapproved Mueller, Paul H., Age 26, Diplomatic Courier, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil-Disapproved Godley, George McM. age 26, 3d Sec. Legation, Bern-Disapproved Burns, Findley, Jr. Age 26, 3d Sec & Vice Consul, Embassy, Madrid Gannett, Michael R. Age 24, FS0-Madras-Disapproved Carnahan, George, Age 29, Vice Consul, Barranquilla, Colombia-Disapproved 40