PbTe is a nonmagnetic semiconductor, and EuTe, also a semiconductor, is a type II fcc antiferromagnet below TN=10 K. Our earlier diffraction studies of [(EuTe)m|PbTe)3m]N samples (with m=2–7, N=200–600) showed that the type II ordering is preserved in the EuTe layers,1 but the lattice strain always selects an arrangement with the (111) ferromagnetic (FM) sheets (characteristic for the type II structure) parallel to the layers. In addition, samples with n⩽5 scans through the antiferromagnetic (AFM) maxima reveal pronounced patterns of satellite peaks—a clear signature of interlayer spin coherence, indicating that Eu–Eu interactions are transferred through PbTe barriers even as thick as 55 Å! The origin of this surprisingly long-range interaction cannot be understood on the grounds of the existing theories of interlayer coupling, in which high concentrations of conduction electrons always play a crucial role,2 because EuTe is insulating at low T and in PbTe n is as low as ∼1017 cm−3. In order to identify the coupling mechanism, we have begun new studies using polarized neutron diffraction. This technique is particularly useful for investigating the AFM domain arrangement. While the (111) symmetry allows six nonequivalent type II configurations, gradually increasing field should align all spins perpendicular to H, interfering with the coupling forces. Eventually, it should destroy the interlayer coherence—“monitoring” of this process may therefore reveal the much needed information about the interlayer coupling strength. Our experiments show a drastic differences in the system behavior depending on the “cooling history.” If the sample is cooled at H=0, then a modest field (∼0.5 T) indeed leads to the expected domain rotation. Further H increase induces a growing ferromagnetic component, and gradually suppresses the AFM one—however, the interlayer coherence in the AFM ordering can be still seen up to surprisingly high H values ∼5 T). On the other hand, if the sample is cooled through TN with the field on, then H as weak as 0.02 T already destroys the interlayer correlations. Explanation of the observed facts and estimates of the interaction strength based on model calculations will be presented, and some possible physical mechanisms undering the interlayer coherence (e.g., coupling by dipolar forces or coupling involving bound carrier states) will be discussed.