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
had been manifested in the fashion in which the Air Staff had com-
piled AWPD/r in August,” and it was to be more pronounced after
the reorganization of 9 March 1942. The fact that in the several staff
committees ancillary to the CCS and JCS the AAF members were peers
of their Army and Navy opposite numbers encouraged that attitude,
which had been tacitly supported by the War Department on z De-
cember when it authorized the Air Staff to communicate directly with
the air staff of the British Joint Staff Mission.ll’
An astute English member of one of the staff sections serving the
CCS was once contrasting, from his own wide experience, the dif-
ferent fashion in which his British and American colleagues inter-
preted their functions.’17 It was his contention that in such an agency
-say, for example, the Combined Planning Staff-the British members
acted as a team with full authority to resolve differences of opinion
without consulting their respective service chiefs and thus were able
to present to the Combined Chiefs a single approved report. Con-
versely, he thought the American members brought to a meeting the
opinions of the heads of their respective services, and lacked power
to compromise those opinions without reference to higher authority.
His explanation for the difference he believed to exist was succinct:
You see, fundamentally, you have a system of dictatorship. Your three Service
chiefs are dictators. So far as the Navy is concerned, Admiral King, as you
know, is not only Chief of the Naval Staff, but also Admiral of the US.Fleet.
He can do anything he likes with the Fleet-make everybody stand on their
heads if he wants to, sack anybody at a moment’s notice. The same applies in
the other Services. General Arnold’s control of the US. Air Force is as com-
plete, virtually, as is Hitler’s control of Germany. He is a complete dictator.
Now, under that system ...everybody’s career from the bottom upwards de-
pends on his pleasing the man above him, and as they rise, the answer is, “DO
what Arnold wants and you will get on in the Air Corps.” Be discovered doing
something Arnold does not like and Arnold sacks you-like that.
These observations were made a t the height of the air war in Eu-
rope; they were made informally and with some pardonable exaggera-
tion to emphasize an argument. Sober judgment could no more
confirm the purported dictatorial powers of the service chiefs than it
could transform the genial “Hap” into a Fuehrer. But it was significant
that to an observant ally the U.S. service commanders possessed widest
powers, and that in that respect the AAF differed not at all from the
U.S. Army and Navy.
* See above, pp. 146-47.
266

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.