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
General, AAF, could affect the planning and control of combat op-
erations.
In reality the influence of AAF Headquarters on the actual conduct
of the war went far beyond a literal interpretation of Circular 59.
Here, as so often in the course of the war, it proved impossible to
separate multiple functions held by one person, and what Arnold
could not do as Commanding General of the AAF he might accom-
plish as Deputy Chief of Staff. In that capacity he had helped frame
military policy during the months before Pearl Harbor; he had attended
the Atlantic conference; and he had sat sometimes-not always-in the
President's unofficial W a r Council.''1 During ARCADIA, Arnold
had acted as one of the Anglo-American chiefs of staff; and with the
formation in February of the CCS and JCS he was designated un-
equivocally as a member of each. There was still a curious anomaly in
his situation. Within the W a r Department, Arnold was subject to
Marshall as Chief of Staff, and though the latter had long since proved
his interest in the cause of air power and had favored Arnold's in-
clusion in the CCS,"* there were still the stubborn facts of seniority
and rank: Arnold had only received his third star with the advent of
war and was not to be made a four-star general for another year.l"
Within the CCS and JCS there was no hierarchy and legally, at least,
the Commanding General of the Army Air Forces, the Army Chief of
Staff, and the Chief of Naval Operations shared equal responsibilities
and powers. And it was as a member of those committees rather than
as commander of the AAF per se that Arnold was to exert his most
important influence in the air war.
This tendency reached on down into the Air Staff. T h e policy
initiated in AR 95-5 of giving the AAF representation in the General
Staff was extended in Circular 59; the ultimate objective was that
roughly half the members of that body should be air officer^."^ If this
looked on paper as an equitable solution, it was not wholly satisfactory
to the Air Staff. Perhaps the crux of the matter lay in the relationship
between A W P D and W P D , with its peculiarly important influence
in formation of strategic policies and in the conduct of operations. In
October 1941,AWPD had objected that WPD was trying to monopo-
lize planning functions which were more appropriate to the Air Staff
and suggested that responsibilities for planning be divided along func-
tional lines between the two offices.'15 This was in reality an effort
to establish two distinct and correlative agencies; the same attitude
2 6 5

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.