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
of opinion as to the most feasible solution for each. The reorganiza-
tion of March 1942 was essentially a compromise, a wartime expedient
which postponed rather than effected a final settlement. The imme-
diate background of this temporary solution may be sought in a three-
cornered struggle between the General Staff‘s War Plans Division,
General Headquarters, and the Army Air Forces. Much, though cer-
tainly not all, of the controversy turned on the relation of the air
arm to the military establishment.
General Headquarters was of recent origin, but the desirability of
such a staff in the event of war had long dominated Army thought.
The Harbord Board of 192I , drawing on the experience of the AEF
in 1917-18, had recommended establishment of a staff comparable to
Pershing’s GHQ which should channel War Department activities
into the theater of operations. T h e core of this headquarters was to
consist of the General Staff’s War Plans Division-indeed it was in
anticipation of such an eventual function that the latter office had been
created and charged with the preparation of over-all strategic plans.
Modified in detail in 1936, the Harbord plan assumed that a t outbreak
of war the Chief of Staff, or some other commander designated by
the President, would lead the field forces with a reinforced WPD as
his general headquarters. When Nazi victories of the spring of 1940
lent urgency to the mobilization of American military forces, an
initial step toward realizing this design was taken by the activation, on
2 6 July, of a “nucleus of GHQ.” Its original mission was to direct the
training of the tactical units of the Army, found in the main in the
four field armies, the armored force, and the GHQ Air Force.* Gen-
eral Marshall delegated effective control of GHQ to its chief of staff,
Brig. Gen. Leslie J. McNair, under whose able leadership a small group
of officers undertook the complex task of organizing and training the
fast-growing Army.84
A year later, on 3 July 1941,the mission of GHQ was extended to
include also the planning and command of operations; in General
Marshall’s words, “GHQ now supersedes War Plans Division in the
organization and control of task forces and operations.” 8 5 This was in
accord with the original intent, but the new arrangement did not
prove satisfactory. T h e Harbord report and the subsequent modifica-
tions of 1936 had conceived of a war involving a concerted effort in
* The last term is confusing, since it referred to an organization which had been
established in 1935, five years before the activation of GHQ itself.
258

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.