Documents / Document

The Army Air Forces in World War II, Vol. 1 (archived PDF)

Air Force Historical Studies Office · 863 pages · text from the file's own layer

This is Volume One of The Army Air Forces in World War II, titled Plans and Early Operations, January 1939 to August 1942, edited by Wesley Frank Craven and James Lea Cate. The University of Chicago Press first published it in 1948, and the Office of Air Force History reprinted it in 1983. The front matter explains how the AAF historical program was set up during the war. The index covers Pacific, Atlantic and European operations, and nothing in the text concerns unidentified aerial phenomena.

  • p. 303 …of Naval Opera- tions; Adm. Ernest J. King, Commander in Chief, U.S. Fleet; Gen. George…
  • p. 316 …So far as the Navy is concerned, Admiral King, as you know, is not only Chief…
  • p. 493 …Admiral King believed that the mines offered a tempting bait to the Japanese who were currently…
  • p. 526 …Hence Admiral King placed a bid for suffi- 461
  • p. 527 …t this stage of the war Admiral King had accepted the belief that his carrier planes…
  • p. 538 …plan by 2 9 June, when Admiral King submitted to the Joint Chiefs a proposal that…
  • p. 607 …type * O n 5 March 1942, Admiral King wrote to General Arnold as follows: “The experience…
  • p. 608 …s.’l A formal request by Admiral King to the Chief of the Army Air Forces…
  • p. 609 …In a letter of 9 March 1942 to Admiral King, he proposed “the estab- lishment of…
  • p. 614 …In June, Admiral King expressed the official Navy position on this point with the utmost clarity…
  • p. 615 …In a memorandum to Admiral King, General McNarney, Deputy Chief of Staff, on 26 May outlined…
  • p. 616 …viewed as a temporary deta~hment.?~ Admiral King’s reaction to these cautious proposals was expressed…
  • p. 618 …the same words as used by Admiral King a month earlier: the answer to the antisubmarine…
  • p. 621 …On 14 September, General Marshall wrote to Admiral King: “Experience with the First Bomber Command in…
  • p. 622 …T o General Marshall’s proposal of 14 September, Admiral King had replied that, although he…
  • p. 641 …54 A week later General Marshall, Admiral King, Harry Hopkins, and a small staff flew to…
  • p. 645 …that scheduled to operate from the United King- dom. Dry topic or no, organization must figure…
  • p. 684 …the principal air task in the United King- dom had long been conceived as strategic bombardment…
  • p. 707 …establishment of base depots in the United King- dom became the basis of action in January…
  • p. 724 …Implicit in all of the arrangements being made in the United King- dom was the belief…
  • p. 788 …Force, Pt. I ; Fleet Adm. Ernest J. King, First Official Report to the Secretary of the…
  • p. 793 …Memo for Adm, King from C/S, 17 Mar. 1 % ~ . 34. JPS 2I/j/D, 7…
  • p. 795 …4 Aug. 1942. 108. Zbid. 109. Adm. King’s Report on Battle of Midway, incl. in…
  • p. 797 …306, 29 June 1942; memos for Adm. King from Mar- shall, 26 June 1942, and for…
  • p. 802 …1942; CM-IN-0629, Chung- king to AGWAR, # # z , 3 Apr. 1942; memo for Gen. Arnold…
  • p. 805 …Ltr., Arnold to King, 2 5 Feb. 1942. certain evidence from all Allied and enemy sources…
  • p. 806 …Memo for King from McNarney, 26 May 1942. 7 1 . Ltr., King to Marshall, 10 June…
  • p. 807 …Ltr., Marshall to King, 14 Sept. 1942, TAB XIVA, in Bowles report; memo for C G…
  • p. 808 …to notes from Mar- shall and Adm. King). 3 2 . A I c m o for…
  • p. 814 …Forces to the United King- dom, App. A, 19 Aug. 1942. 50. Ltr., Col. H.L…
  • p. 851 …C.E., 48-50 Killin, Pfc, 219 Kilner Board, 1 2 0 Kimbolton, 63 I King…
  • p. 854 …in Chief, 515, 5 2 2 , 544. (see also King); controversy over air power vs. battleship…
T H E A R M Y A I R F O R C E S I N W O R L D W A R I 1
habit in respect to war had ever been first declare, then prepare. That
this policy had enjoyed the apparent sanction of success was not be-
cause of any virtue inherent in it. Actually our victories in foreign
wars owed much to three factors: the weakness of enemies like Mexico
and Spain; the involvement of enemies like England and Germany
with other European powers; and the geographical isolation of our
nation. In the period 1939-41these factors obtained, if at all, in a lesser
degree. Our potential enemies were strong, not weak; they were
girded for war materially and spiritually. The friendly powers upon
whom we might have depended for respite long shrank from war, and
when war came they crumbled one by one until only Britain stood,
and that precariously. And new techniques of war and new weapons-
particularly the long-range bomber and the carrier-borne plane-had
weakened the security once offered by our geographical situation.
Given these changed conditions and the revolutionary doctrines and
aggressive activities of the Axis powers, the United States could ill
afford its customary delay in preparing for war.
The national administration appreciated the new threat to our
security earlier than did most American citizens, but before Pearl
Harbor the public had, for the most part, come to recognize that
threat. This change in public opinion was in reality a psychological
preparation for war; it was brought about by the sheer logic of events
abroad and by the activities of private citizens, acting individually or
through organized groups, as well as by the educational efforts of the
national admini~tration.~Perhaps in the last analysis the psychological
preparation was the most important single factor in improving our
national defense, but this chapter is concerned only with more tangi-
ble measures inaugurated by the government.
When war broke out in Europe in September 1939, the United
States declared its n e ~ t r a l i t y . ~Its stated policy was to remain out of
the conflict if possible and a t the same time to keep the totalitarian
powers out of the Western Hemisphere. The latter objective de-
manded a further extension and an acceleration of previous programs
for strengthening American armed forces. It called also, because of
the threat of new weapons and modes of warfare, for the establish-
ment of new strategic bases. The declared policy was wholly con-
sonant with the Monroe Doctrine, and the measures taken to enforce
it were, for a while, consistent with our traditional ideas of defense.
But under the impact of repeated Axis successes in Europe, the
I02

About this file

Document, cited by the archive. The PDF is mirrored here; the original link is under it. 863 pages are in the text index: search them above, or from the library's search.