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
power, but, shorn of details, the proposals for reorganization followed
one of four patterns. Most radical was the independent air force,
usually drawing heavily upon the RAF and its Air Ministry for prece-
dent. This scheme called for a new cabinet agency on a par with the
War and Navy departments. Since in most plans of this type the De-
partment of Aeronautics was to control all government aviation-cur-
rently divided between the Army, the Navy, and civilian agencies-
the terms “independent,” “separate,” and “united air force” were used
interchangeably. Various expedients were suggested to govern the
employment of aircraft by this department in operations over land
and sea, but none offered an acceptable solution to the problem of
unity of command. An alternative plan, which seemed compatible with
current ideas of command and potentially more economical, gained
popularity after 1923. This entailed creation of a single Department
of National Defense with co-ordinate subdepartments for Army,
Navy, and Air. When this plan was rejected, some Air Service officers,
cautious by nature or discouraged by constant rebuffs, were willing
to settle for a degree of autonomy within the War Department
equivalent to that enjoyed by the Marine Corps in the Navy. And,
when that was not forthcoming, as a last resort they accepted as a
poor compromise such tactical control as might be achieved by
assigning the bulk of offensive air units to General Headquarters.
The War Department resisted in turn every proposal to eliminate
or diminish its control over military aviation. The Secretary of War
was supported in this resistance, overtly or tacitly, by each Chief
Executive during the period under consideration, by the powerful
military and naval affairs committees in Congress, and by most general
officers. Similarly, the Navy Department, its General Board, and most
admirals objected strenuously to any organizational change which
would establish a different control for overwater aircraft or which
threatened to disturb the dominant role of the battleship. Service
academies and colleges followed service lines. In 1925 Secretary of the
Navy Curtis D. Wilbur could say: “I think there is not a man in either
service, outside of those connected with the aircraft-I do not know of
any in the service, with one or two exceptions in the Army possibly-
who would regard the Air Service as a principal service.”
Certainly that unanimity existed within the Army’s General Staff,
and it was in this agency that proponents of air reorganization found
their most potent antagonists. As late as 1926 an official poll taken for
2 0

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.