The Army Air Forces in World War II, Vol. 1 (archived PDF)

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
tions and the Langley Field treatise on bombardment are deliberately
limited to warfare against a major opponent in a land theater of opera-
tions. Coast defense and landing operations are excluded; where and
how air and ground forces were to come to grips with an enemy is not
explained. Essentially the war described is that of I 9 I 7-1 8, but without
reference to the allies who had provided the Army with bases and a
lodgment in Europe. It was impolitic in the 1920’s to speak of ex-
peditionary forces or allies, but without them the concept of air power
as an auxiliary to great land forces was meaningless.
During the next decade discussion within the W a r Department of
the Air Corps mission assumed a more realistic tone. Here again
Mitchell’s influence was important; if he had been somewhat circuitous
in his approach, his treatment of air power had at least been couched
in terms of concrete problems. But the deciding factor was the devel-
opment of new strategic plans for national defense, initiated in ac-
cordance with the implications of the MacArthur-Pratt agreement of
1931 and shaped more decisively thereafter by consideration of the
growing unrest in Europe and Asia. It has already been shown how
conflicting opinions as to the air mission led eventually to the creation
on I March 1935 of the GHQ Air Force.” That reorganization called
naturally for a reformulation of doctrine, and, since the idea of such a
force had long been associated with air operations of a quasi-inde-
pendent nature, exponents of strategic bombardment hoped for a more
positive statement of the importance of that type of mission. That
hope was unfounded. While recommending the establishment of the
GHQ Air Force, both the Drum Board ( I 2 October 1933) and the
Baker Board ( 1 8 July 1934) had denied the possibility of an air attack
on the United States and of an effective defense by aircraft alone
against other modes of invasion.’22 But they did allow that GHQ
aviation would prove a valuable adjunct to coast defense. T h e Baker
report summed up this attitude in a dictum which was often quoted
in subsequent arguments: “The development of aviation has increased
the power of the offense where the countries at war border on, or are
close to, each other, and has increased the power of the defense where
the contestants are widely separated. This new arm is, therefore, ad-
vantageous to our national policy.” l Z 3
If US. planes could not attack European cities, foreign land-based
aircraft could not operate against this country without aid of a large
* See above, p. 3 1 .
47