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 I R C O R P S P R E P A R E S F O R W A R , 1 9 3 9 - 4 1
mitments, supplies were to be divided equally between the British and
the Soviets.11
Whether stated in specific terms or in percentage, the import of
these schedules was the same. On the very eve of war the AAF was
working under an allocation system which made impossible the early
achievement of its 54-group program. T h e principle which since sum-
mer of 1940 had favored aid to the Allies over the needs of our own
air arm was clear enough; as the Slessor Agreement put it, allocations
of air materiel to the using services should be governed by their respec-
tive abilities to “absorb it usefully.” Obviously the most useful em-
ployment of a weapon is in combat, and in the broad view the policy
seemed justified by the time it afforded us. Perhaps the policy might
have been modified had it been realized earlier that war would come
in 1941;efforts to increase heavy bombardment strength in the Pacific
seem to suggest this. Much of the AAF’s loss to foreign services was
in “futures,” but actual diversions and the difficulty of systematic
development in the face of constantly fluctuating allotments help
explain its far-from-perfect preparedness on M-day. W a r was to bring
no easy solution to the problems of aid to the Allies, but it was to
bring a sharp revision in aircraft allocation schedules.
Strategic Plans
Not least important of our defense measures was the formulation of
strategic and operational plans. This activity was intimately associated
with the other phases of our preparations for war, and like them was
profoundly influenced by events in Europe and Asia. Again the
summer of 1940 may be viewed as a turning point in our national
policies. Before that season the US. service staffs had been at work on
a number of alternative plans, each based on a different set of contin-
gencies. T h e planners were concerned only with the mission of the
US. Army and Navy, but they had to assume potential allies as well as
potential enemies. Until the spring of 1940, we could be confident that
in a war against the Axis we would enjoy powerful support from the
British and French; after Dunkirk, the prospect was less sanguine.
Germany and Italy controlled, as conquered territory or as satellite
states, much of Europe; Spain was friendly to the Axis, the U.S.S.R.
bound by nonaggression treaties. T h e Tripartite Pact, signed at Berlin
on 2 7 September 1940, which brought Japan into the Axis gave official
notice of an alliance already suspected. In view of the collapse of
‘ 3 5

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.