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. 258 …order to achieve this end we should cooperate with Japan fully un- quote.” Then: “ I 3…
  • p. 345 …seater aircraft operated by inexperienced personnel in cooperation with antiaircraft search- lights.” la‘ Many important objectives…
  • p. 425 …with brilliant judgment who must rely on cooperation,” * the ARCADIA conference of the British and American…
  • p. 566 …joined at Dinjan by Col. Merian C. Cooper. The task confronting them, to say the le…
  • p. 596 …There had even been talk of “mutual cooperation” rather than “unity of command.” Some firm decision…
  • p. 629 …the British Isles, to “operate independently in cooperation with the British Bomber Command.” l o Detailed…
  • p. 679 …the fullest agreement with the methods of cooperation which you propose and supremely confident that, at…
  • p. 793 …1942. 36. Ibid. 37. Col. Merian C. Cooper, Briefing 7'8 Officer, First Special Aviation Project…
  • p. 802 …Mar. 1943; talk by Col. M.C. Cooper in Gen. Johnson's Staff Meeting, 2 3…
  • p. 846 …5 5 2 Coolidge, President, 25, 28 Cooper, Col. M.C., 499 Coral Sea. Battle of…
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
development of the air force which went to war in December 1941
that it is legitimate to confine the present discussion to them even at
the risk of overemphasis and oversimplification.
Organization of the Army Air Arm, 1919-39
Of the trends designated above, that of broadest implication was the
fight for independence of military aeronautics. Originating as a juris-
dictional problem within the Army, the struggle became a major
national issue and hence should be viewed in the broader context of
the whole American scene. T h e two decades after the Armistice saw
in the United States a revulsion from the enthusiasms of the great
crusade to save democracy, a widespread skepticism concerning the
real war aims, and a profound distaste for militarism and for war in
general. The slogans of the period are suggestive of its temper-
“return to normalcy,” “disarmament” and “limitation of armaments,”
“outlawry of war,” “Merchants of Death,” “neutrality legislation.”
Neither isolationism nor pacifism, the great depression nor the New
Deal, was conducive to heavy expenditures for the Army and Navy;
and, indeed, until the aggressor nations began to march in the mid-
thirties, the problem of national defense seemed to many Americans
but an academic exercise invented by the militarists.
In spite of the prevailing mood, defense appropriations for 1919-39
were heavier than for any similar peacetime period, but they were
inadequate by standards to which the armed forces had become accus-
tomed. In the inevitable competition for limited funds, the requests
of each service were guided by its peculiar philosophy of national
security. The Navy held out for a strong battle fleet built around the
capital ship. T h e War Department wished to increase the size of the
Regular Army-the 1919request for half-a-million men was scaled
down to z80,ooo-and to organize it as a nucleus for rapid and vast
expansion in an emergency rather than as an integral force. According
to this scheme existing air units would be spread thin as cadres among
the several armies.’ Aviation officers had to accept this concept, but
the most advanced thought in the Air Service favored a relatively small
body of highly trained professionals welded into a compact striking
force ready for instant service. This view found no support in the
General Staff, composed exclusively of ground officers only mildly
interested in air power. In 19 I 7 they had vainly opposed the $640,000,-
ooo appropriation for aeronautics; after the war they were able to
I 8

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.