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…
F U N D A M E N T A L B A S E S O F S T R A T E G Y
its member was the Chief of the Air Staff, Maj. Gen. Millard F.
Harmon. H e served also as chairman of a subsidiary group, the Muni-
tions Assignments Committee (Air), and the AAF in this body con-
tinued to play the important role it had previously enjoyed in the
Joint Aircraft Committee.82
As the war went on, the combined and joint machinery grew more
complex, the size of its personnel greater. It could not, in the nature
of things, wholly escape the taint of bureaucracy, and that its officers
could partially escape the standard “battle of the Pentagon” jokes was
perhaps due to the fact that they were more often housed in another
building. But the war, being global, was also complex and great in
size; the task of planning operations and deployments in every con-
tinent, of finding resources and establishing relative priorities-this
required a staff organized on a scale and in a manner hitherto un-
known in the United States. Perhaps the magnitude of the task can
be fully appreciated only by those who have made an intensive study
of the files of the Combined and the Joint Chiefs of Staff. The respon-
sibility for keeping those records, incidentally, was no light one. It
was vested, at the two levels, in the Combined Secretariat and the
Joint Secretariat, which prepared and circulated the various draft and
final papers and which kept a permanent record of the proceedings
at staff meetings. Here again initial British influence was
The establishment of the new machinery for combined and joint
control of the war effort did much to secure for the air arm a position
commensurate with its growing size and power through the inclusion
of AAF representatives in each new agency. Concurrently, the War
Department was undergoing structural modifications which contrib-
uted to the same end. The reorganization which went into effect on
9 March 1942 was the fruit of months of study and debate precip-
itated by the military crisis of 1940-41; to understand the issues
involved, it is useful to recall briefly the nature of the Army’s admin-
istrative machinery when mobilization began. At that time most re-
sponsible leaders within the War Department were agreed that the
existing organization was ill attuned to the needs of modern war-
specifically :hat reforms should be instituted which aimed at decen-
tralization of staff work in Washington, at unity of command in the
field. In practice, those principles were difficult to reconcile, and
among the several agencies concerned there existed wide differences
2 5 7

About this file

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