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
a single theater; in the summer of 1941both the European Axis and
Japan loomed as probable enemies and responsibilities for hemisphere
defense involved the establishment of widely scattered bases and de-
fense commands. Anglo-American plans had envisaged the establish-
ment of several theaters of operations, but firm commitment of the
field forces must depend in the initial stages of war upon enemy
strategy. Under these circumstances it did not seem wise for either
General Marshall or GHQ to take the field. W a r Plans Division was
never incorporated into GHQ and remained a potential rival to that
staff in spite of the directive of 3 July.86
That directive proved difficult to follow, since some of the func-
tions and powers prescribed therein were contingent upon unpre-
dictable circumstances. From the date of its issue, General McNair
considered the authority granted GHQ unequal to the new respon-
sibilities, and on 2 5 July he requested an extension of his powers. T h e
chief difficulty lay in his lack of control over supplies, a weakness he
thought fatal to effective planning for, and command of, task forces.
Competing with the Navy and lend-lease for material resources, the
W a r Department was unwilling to relinquish its control over this
essential factor. Thus it was with restricted authority that GHQ, in
the months just before and after Pearl Harbor, planned operations and
dispatched task forces, some of which have been mentioned in earlier
passages of this chapter. But however important the matter of supply
may have been to GHQ, the issue of most immediate concern to the
Army air arm was its own relation to the new agency.
That conflict would arise between the air force and a GHQ donii-
nated by ground officers was to be expected; what occurred was no
more than a new phase of the dispute which had defied solution for
two decades. Widespread recognition of the importance of air power
in the European war and General Marshall’s sympathetic attitude to-
ward the Army’s air arm encouraged those officers who were dissatis-
fied with the organizational compromise of 1935. Rather than return
to the public campaign for a separate department of air, they now
directed their efforts toward securing greater powers within the W a r
Department. In these efforts they were opposed by GHQ as they had
earlier been by the General Staff, but the alignment was now less
uneven. T h e appointment of General Arnold as Deputy Chief of Staff
in October 1940 gave him immediate access to the Chief of Staff; and,
if the new office was not in the same chain of command as Arnold’s
2 5 9

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.