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 A R M B E T W E E N T W O W A R S
each side that ;he other side had been unreasonable.” T h e contro-
versy was characterized by much poor rhetoric, by extraneous political
issues, by Fabian tactics on the part of those in power, and at times by
a disconcerting lack of decorum and of candor. T o the public it be-
came a battle royal of “Billy Mitchell versus the Brass Hats,” with
the climax in his court-martial, a cause ce‘libre unique in American
military history. But, from a purely administrative viewpoint, the
struggle may be conceived as running through four phases, punctu-
ated by the Army Reorganization Act of 1920, the Air Corps Act of
1926, and the formation of the GHQ Air Force in 1935.
Legislative efforts to establish aviation as a combatant branch of the
Army and as a separate service had begun, respectively, in 1913 and
1916.Attracting little support, those efforts had failed, and, when the
United States entered World War I, its Army air arm consisted of
the Aviation Section, Signal Corps, as provided in an act of 1 8 July
1 9 1 4 . ’ ~It was the failure of that organization and its allied offices to
adjust to the demands of large-scale war which led to the establishment
in 19 I 8 of the Air Service as a quasi-autonomous body within the W a r
Department. More successful than its predecessor, the Air Service was
far from perfect as an administrative agency, and it existed only as an
emergency measure set up by executive order. After the Armistice, in
spite of further temporary expedients adopted by President Wilson,
the loss of key personnel through resignations threatened to leave
military aviation without leadership in the crucial period of demobili-
zation of the air force and collapse of the war-born aircraft industry.“
T h e demand for new policies to guide a peacetime program was not
peculiar to the Air Service. In 1919the W a r Department was pressing
for a drastic revision of the military establishment as prescribed in the
National Defense Act of 3 June 1916.Returning Air Service officers
were eager that any reorganization should provide for a separate air
force. Congressional support was stronger than in the prewar period,
but, of the eight bills introduced in 1919-20to provide for a Depart-
ment of Aeronautics, only one was favorably reported.” Expert
studies of the problems involved served merely to confirm opinions
previously held. Pershing’s Dickman Board at Chaumont and the W a r
Department’s Menoher Board at Washington opposed any change in
the control of aviation, the latter concluding that “the military air
force must remain under the complete control of the Army and form
an integral part thereof.” Yet the Crowell mission, appointed by
2 3

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.