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 I1
shore exploded the next day, killing four men.64Attempts by Army
planes to bomb the submarine were apparently unsuccessful. In any
case, the air patrols were powerless to prevent a second attack on
Aruba on 19 February 6 5 and additional nuisance shellings of shore
installations in Puerto Rico on 2 March 1942 “ and of a refinery on
CuraGao on 19 April.67
The initial attack on Aruba prompted President Roosevelt to warn
the nation that enemy ships could shell New York City, or enemy
planes drop bombs on Detroit.68 Secretary Stimson added that the
public might as well prepare itself to accept “occasional blows,”
because the Army was determined not to disperse its forces in small
fragments to serve as security garrison^.^^ The New York Times, in
an editorial on 2 0 February, pointed out that American seaboard cities
were well within the enemy’s reach, but that the only danger was that
attacks might create a popular demand for protection at all costs. The
real need, it was suggested, was for the perfection of the defense
machinery already in e~istence.~’This raised the question of the
adequacy of the national air defenses; a few days later, events along
the West Coast provided a not too reassuring answer.
During the course of a fireside report to the nation delivered by
President Roosevelt on 2 3 February 1942, a Japanese submarine rose
out of the sea off Ellwood, a hamlet on the California coast north of
Santa Barbara, and pumped thirteen shells into tidewater refinery
installations. The shots seemed designed to punctuate the President’s
statement that “the broad oceans which have been heralded in the past
as our protection from attack have become endless battlefields on
which we are constantly being challenged by our enemies.” “ Yet the
attack which was supposed to carry the enemy’s defiance, and which
did succeed in stealing headlines from the President’s address, was a
feeble gesture rather than a damaging blow. The raider surfaced at
1905 (Pacific time), just five minutes after the President started his
~peech.~’For about twenty minutes the submarine kept a position
2,500 yards offshore to deliver the shots from its 5S-inch guns. The
shells did minor damage to piers and oil wells, but missed the gasoline
plant, which appears to have been the aiming point; the military effects
of the raid were therefore nil. The first news of the attack led to the
dispatch of pursuit planes to the area, and subsequently three bombers
joined the attempt to destroy the raider, but without success.73The
reluctance of AAF commanders to assign larger forces to the task
2 82

About this file

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