ebook img

DTIC ADA527944: Command Relations at the Operational Level of War. Kenney, MacArthur, and Arnold PDF

15 Pages·0.42 MB·English
Save to my drive
Quick download
Download
Most books are stored in the elastic cloud where traffic is expensive. For this reason, we have a limit on daily download.

Preview DTIC ADA527944: Command Relations at the Operational Level of War. Kenney, MacArthur, and Arnold

Command Relations at the Operational Level of War Kenney, MacArthur, and Arnold COL THOMAS E. GRIFFITH JR., USAF* AS GEN DOUGLAS MACARTHUR’S air his ability to juggle the demands placed on commander in the Southwest him by the theater commander, MacArthur, Pacific theater during World War II, with those imposed by Gen Henry H. “Hap” Gen George C. Kenney applied op- Arnold, commanding general of the Army Air erational insights, intellectual acumen, and Forces. Establishing MacArthur’s trust and innovative drive that made airpower a vital confidence proved essential to gaining the part of the Allied victory. An important, in- flexibility and authority Kenney needed to deed critical, part of Kenney’s success was employ airpower effectively, but he remained *I presented this article as a paper at the annual meeting of the Society of Military History in Montgomery, Alabama, in 1997. The comments of many individuals made this article better, but I would especially like to thank Dik Daso, Steven McFarland, and Tom Hughes for their suggestions. I have also benefited from the work and advice of Herman Wolk. For efforts that illuminate General Kenney’s contributions, see Herman S. Wolk, “George C. Kenney: The Great Innovator,” iMnakers of the United States Air Force, ed. John L. Frisbee (Washington, D.C.: Office of Air Force History, 1987), 127–50; and Herman S. Wolk, “George C. Kenney: MacArthur’s Premier Airman,” inWe Shall Return! MacArthur’s Commanders and the Defeat of Japan, 1942–1945, ed. William M. Leary (Lexington: University Press of Kentucky, 1988), 88–114. The latter concentrates on Kenney’s role in World War II. 50 Report Documentation Page Form Approved OMB No. 0704-0188 Public reporting burden for the collection of information is estimated to average 1 hour per response, including the time for reviewing instructions, searching existing data sources, gathering and maintaining the data needed, and completing and reviewing the collection of information. Send comments regarding this burden estimate or any other aspect of this collection of information, including suggestions for reducing this burden, to Washington Headquarters Services, Directorate for Information Operations and Reports, 1215 Jefferson Davis Highway, Suite 1204, Arlington VA 22202-4302. Respondents should be aware that notwithstanding any other provision of law, no person shall be subject to a penalty for failing to comply with a collection of information if it does not display a currently valid OMB control number. 1. REPORT DATE 3. DATES COVERED 1999 2. REPORT TYPE 00-00-1999 to 00-00-1999 4. TITLE AND SUBTITLE 5a. CONTRACT NUMBER Command Relations at the Operational Level of War. Kenney, 5b. GRANT NUMBER MacArthur, and Arnold 5c. PROGRAM ELEMENT NUMBER 6. AUTHOR(S) 5d. PROJECT NUMBER 5e. TASK NUMBER 5f. WORK UNIT NUMBER 7. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME(S) AND ADDRESS(ES) 8. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION Air and Space Power Journal,155 N. Twining Street,Maxwell REPORT NUMBER AFB,AL,36112-6026 9. SPONSORING/MONITORING AGENCY NAME(S) AND ADDRESS(ES) 10. SPONSOR/MONITOR’S ACRONYM(S) 11. SPONSOR/MONITOR’S REPORT NUMBER(S) 12. DISTRIBUTION/AVAILABILITY STATEMENT Approved for public release; distribution unlimited 13. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES 14. ABSTRACT 15. SUBJECT TERMS 16. SECURITY CLASSIFICATION OF: 17. LIMITATION OF 18. NUMBER 19a. NAME OF ABSTRACT OF PAGES RESPONSIBLE PERSON a. REPORT b. ABSTRACT c. THIS PAGE Same as 14 unclassified unclassified unclassified Report (SAR) Standard Form 298 (Rev. 8-98) Prescribed by ANSI Std Z39-18 COMMAND RELATIONS AT THE OPERATIONAL LEVEL OF WAR 51 dependent on Arnold for the supplies, peo­ commander of the American air units, he ple, and planes necessary to fight the war, bore the brunt of the blame. MacArthur’s re- making his association with the command­ ports to Washington made his unhappiness ing general equally important. Balanc-ing with Brett clear. In May 1942 President the demands levied by officers with very dif­ Franklin Roosevelt sent a three-man team to ferent perspectives and goals created a investigate conditions in Australia. When Lt source of tension and conflict for Kenney Col Samuel Anderson returned to Washing- throughout the war. In the end he decided ton at the end of June, he told Gen George that he owed his primary loyalty to MacArthur, C. Marshall, Army chief of staff, that Brett a decision highlighted in Kenney’s debates had to be relieved: “As long as Brett is there, with fellow airmen over the use of B-29s in you won’t have any cooperation between the Pacific. ground and air, and I don’t think you plan to The fact that personal relationships among relieve General MacArthur.”1 In early July commanders are important and have an im­ Marshall offered either Brig Gen James H. pact on military affairs in both peace and war Doolittle, “who had impressed all of us as an is not new. Although the armed forces spend organizer, as a leader and as a dependable a great deal of time and energy designing or­ type,” or Maj Gen George Kenney, “who is ganizational relationships and arrangements rated tops by General [John L.] DeWitt that will ensure success, harmonious relation- [Kenney’s immediate superior officer],”2 as a ships among commanders and other senior replacement for Brett. MacArthur opted for leaders often provide the necessary lubrica­ Kenney because, he said, “It would be diff-i tion for making the military machine run cult to convince the Australians of Doolittle’s acceptability.”3 MacArthur claimed that the smoothly. In the face of less-than-optimum Tokyo Raider’s break in service during the circumstances, good working relations can 1930s would be viewed “unfavorably” by the make a military operation effective. Australians. More likely, MacArthur did not Conversely, even the best-designed organ-i want Doolittle because he would take pub­ zation cannot overcome problems created by licity away from MacArthur. personal friction. Although Kenney’s dilemma Extenuating circumstances might have is important for understanding the war in the explained the problems in Australia, but Pacific, it also points out a more enduring les­ Arnold clearly blamed Brett, telling Kenney son: the considerable weight that personal re­ that “Brett should have done the ‘getting lationships bear in any theater of war. along’ since he was the junior.” 4 In addition to the problems between MacArthur and Kenney and MacArthur Brett, Marshall cryptically warned Kenney about some “personality clashes” in the When, as a newcomer, Kenney assumed headquarters that were causing problems.5 command of Allied Air Forces in the South- In short, when Kenney landed in Australia, west Pacific in August 1942, gaining Mac- he was thoroughly convinced of the need to Arthur’s backing was his top priority as well get along with MacArthur. He knew that “his as his greatest challenge. During meetings life would be very unhappy” if he did not.6 in Washington, D.C., before leaving for the Kenney’s initial meeting with MacArthur Pacific, Kenney heard plenty about the con­ was not an auspicious beginning for forming siderable friction between MacArthur and Lt a partnership. MacArthur began by deliver­ Gen George Brett, the incumbent air com­ ing a lecture on the wretched state of air mander. units in his command and ticked off a num­ Although many problems in Australia— ber of complaints: the poor bombing accu­ such as the lack of supplies, a paucity of racy of the aircrews, the lack of discipline trained staff officers, and ill-equipped air­ among the air units, and—most damning to craft—were not entirely Brett’s fault, as the MacArthur—disloyalty from the airmen. As 52 AIRPOWER JOURNAL SUMMER 1999 ders to communicate with MacArthur or pro- vide advice on using airpower. Maj Gen Lewis Brereton, air commander in the Philippines, rarely spoke with MacArthur and had to deal almost exclusively with Sutherland.1 1 Like-wise, Brett complained that “he had so much trouble getting past Sutherland to see MacArthur that he hadn’t seen the General for weeks.” The chief of staff so irritated Brett that he “just talked to Sutherland on the telephone when he had to.” In his parting words, Brett described Sutherland as a man with a limited know-l Kenney (left) and Arnold. Arnold was undoubtedly an­ edge of air matters and “a bully, who, should noyed by a perception of excessive parochialism in he lose the ability to say ‘by order of General some of Kenney’s actions. Nevertheless, Kenney’s MacArthur’ would be . . . a nobody.” The de- ability to make things happen with the resources he parting airman recommended a “show-down was given made him indispensable as a senior Air Force commander. early in the game with Sutherland.” 12 far as he was concerned, the accomplish­ Kenney had at least one advantage over ments he had seen to date did not “justify all his predecessors in dealing with Sutherland. the boasting the Air Force had been in­ The two officers had been classmates at the dulging in for years.”7 After listening to Army War College almost 10 years earlier. MacArthur vent his displeasure for nearly an Although it is unclear how friendly the two hour, Kenney finally broke in, bluntly promis­ became over the year, they did work to­ ing that he would straighten things out be- gether on one project for several weeks, and cause “he knew how to run an Air Force as the exposure undoubtedly gave Kenney an well or better than anyone else.” 8 Kenney edge over the other air commanders in un- clearly saw that he had “two important bits of derstanding Sutherland’s personality.1 3 salesmanship that had to be put over if the Armed with his own knowledge of Air Force was to play the role it was capable Sutherland and Brett’s advice about an early of. I had to sell myself to the General and I showdown, Kenney looked for an opportu­ had to sell him to the kids.”9 nity to confront the chief of staff. He didn’t An indirect but important part of Ken­ have long to wait. On 4 August 1942, the ney’s effort to “sell himself” involved con- day Kenney officially took command, he re­ fronting the personality clashes that ceived orders for upcoming air operations. Marshall had warned of. The Army chief of Rather than broad mission guidance, staff directed his admonition primarily at the Sutherland sent detailed instructions, direct­ struggles between previous air commanders ing takeoff times, weapons, and even tac­ and Maj Gen Richard K. Sutherland, tics. Kenney was furious. He immediately MacArthur’s chief of staff. Acknowledged as marched into Sutherland’s office, arguing, in a brilliant though arrogant staff officer, typical Kenney fashion, that he was the Sutherland was known both for his intense “most competent airman in the Pacific” and loyalty to MacArthur and his ability to antag­ that he had the responsibility to decide how onize people through vindictive and un­ the air units should operate—not scrupulous behavior.10 Sutherland. Kenney shot down Sutherland’s Prior to Kenney’s arrival, Sutherland had rebuttal by suggesting that they “go into the frequently interfered with air matters and next room, see General MacArthur, and get kept Kenney’s predecessors isolated, mak­ this thing straight. I want to find out who is ing it almost impossible for the air comman­ supposed to run this Air Force.”14 According to Kenney, Sutherland backed down, re- COMMAND RELATIONS AT THE OPERATIONAL LEVEL OF WAR 53 scinded the orders, and then apologized, formance has been marked and is directly claiming that he had been forced to write the attributable to your splendid and effective detailed instructions prior to Kenney’s ar­ leadership.”18 MacArthur was equally lauda- rival. Although this was not the final disagree­ ment between the two, it was the last time Sutherland directly interfered with Kenney’s Kenney’s credibility with the theater combat operations. Perhaps the showdown commander helped him convince vindicated Brett’s analysis of Sutherland as MacArthur of the advantages that a bully who backed down when someone airpower offered in the theater. At stood up to him. More likely, both Sutherland the same time, MacArthur’s support and Kenney knew that the chief of staff provided the air commander the should not have issued detailed orders to opportunity to implement his ideas the air component commander and realized with little interference. that MacArthur would back Kenney in this situation. In Kenney’s words, Sutherland “knew he was going to lose.”15 Adding to Kenney’s self-confidence in this tory in a message to the Army chief of staff confrontation was the knowledge that he a week later: “General Kenney with splendid was already hard at work establishing a efficiency has vitalized the Air Force and close personal and professional relationship with the energetic support of his two fine with MacArthur. Although the two had had field commanders, [Maj Gen Ennis] little contact before the war, the working and Whitehead and [Brig Gen Kenneth] Walker, living arrangements in Australia aided is making remarkable progress. From unsat­ Kenney’s efforts in this regard.1 6 Both isfactory, the Air Force has already pro­ Kenney and MacArthur had their headquar­ gressed to very good and soon will be ex­ ters offices in the Australian Mutual cellent. In comparatively few weeks I Provident (AMP) Insurance building on the confidently expect it to be superior.”1 9 Not corner of Queen and Edward Streets in surprisingly, two weeks later MacArthur rec­ Brisbane. MacArthur’s office was on the ommended Kenney for promotion to lieu- eighth floor, and Kenney’s was on the fifth, tenant general.20 making it convenient for the airman to see Other officers who served in the the theater commander at any time. Kenney Southwest Pacific clearly recognized the took full advantage of the proximity, visiting close relationship between Kenney and MacArthur at least once a day, often timing MacArthur, which proved instrumental in es­ his call so that they could eat lunch together. tablishing Kenney’s independence as an air Also, since both men lived in the same hotel, commander. Kenney’s chief of staff judged Kenney began visiting MacArthur “quite that his boss and MacArthur got along “very often” in the evenings. During these occa­ well” and that the theater commander sions, the two discussed both personal and “seemed to have a pretty poor opinion of the professional matters.17 air business and what it could do before Kenney’s efforts quickly paid off. Whether Kenney got there.”21 One ground officer said due to a fortuitous blending of personalities, Kenney was the “only one who could tell the improved performance of Kenney’s air- MacArthur off,”22 and Sutherland warned an- men, or a combination of factors, Kenney other never to get into a dispute with the earned MacArthur’s trust and confidence. In Army Air Forces because MacArthur would early September MacArthur told Kenney that always rule in favor of Kenney.23 “it has been little more than a month since Kenney’s relationship with MacArthur was you assumed command of the air compo­ important in exploiting the capabilities that nent in this area. The improvement in its per­ airpower offered in the Southwest Pacific. 54 AIRPOWER JOURNAL SUMMER 1999 MacArthur (seated) and Kenney (far right, front row, looking to his right). The formal Japanese surrender was con­ ducted aboard the USS Missouri, Tokyo Bay, 2 September 1945. MacArthur credited Kenney above all others for the victory in the Pacific. Not long after he arrived in the region, Near the end of the war, MacArthur Kenney told Arnold that victory in the summed up his thoughts on Kenney’s contr-i Southwest Pacific depended on the ability to bution, leaving little doubt about his admira- control islands that could be used as air tion: “I believe that no, repeat, no officer sug- bases to cut off air and sea lines of supply. gested for promotion to General has In some cases these were true islands, but rendered more outstanding and brilliant ser- the inability to move into the interior of large vice than Kenney. . . . Nothing that [Gen land areas in the Southwest Pacific, such as Carl] Spaatz or any other air officer has ac- New Guinea, converted airfields and gar- complished in the war compares to what risons along the coast into “islands” as Kenney has contributed and none in my well.2 4 Kenney’s credibility with the theater opinion is his equal in ability.”26 This was fit­ commander helped him convince MacArthur ting testimony to Kenney’s service as an air of the advantages that airpower offered in component commander. the theater. At the same time, MacArthur’s support provided the air commander the op- Kenney and Arnold portunity to implement his ideas with little in- terference. A very pleased General Arnold In contrast to the generally smooth rap- summed up the importance of Kenney’s ef- port that Kenney established and main- forts by telling him, “I don’t believe the units tained with MacArthur throughout the war, could possibly perform the missions in the his dealings with Hap Arnold were more manner that they are doing without the most troubled. Kenney’s meetings in Washington sympathetic support from General before leaving for the Southwest Pacific in MacArthur. It requires complete understand- the summer of 1942 established the tone of ing between General MacArthur and you.”25 their relationship. At that time America was COMMAND RELATIONS AT THE OPERATIONAL LEVEL OF WAR 55 still gearing up to produce the large numbers to fight with each day, giving little consider­ of troops and supplies needed to fight a ation to the broader and more long-term world war. In keeping with the “Europe first” problems that Arnold faced. Not surprisingly, strategy of the United States, Arnold was his book about the war, General Kenney determined to pit the maximum number of Reports: A Personal History of the Pacific aircraft against Germany, despite impas­ War, captures this perspective. sioned pleas from every commander. He The tension between these dissimilar ou-t told Kenney that he could expect no more looks surfaced over many issues during the than the six hundred aircraft already in the war—some important, others almost trivial. Pacific and pointedly commented that Brett Kenney complained frequently about aircraft “kept yelling for equipment all the time, a-l arriving with unneeded equipment, such as though he should have enough already.”27 heaters (not used by aircrews flying at low a-l The message for Kenney was clear: make titude in the tropics), or unwanted modifica­ do with what you have. tions, such as the installation of a bottom gun Although warned not to expect any more turret on B-24s to defend against fighters a-t aircraft and aware that the national strategic tacking from below (unnecessary since most priority called for defeating Germany before of the B-24 attacks in Kenney’s command Japan, Kenney—after seeing the situation in took place from low altitude). The removal of the Pacific firsthand—began pestering the copilot’s position in one bomber incensed Arnold for more planes, people, and sup- Kenney because of the importance of this air- plies. Arnold firmly told Kenney that he could man in combat operations. He told Arnold, “I count on having enough aircraft to defend emphatically want [the] provision for the cop-i against Japanese attacks and “carry out a lot left in the airplane.”30 limited offensive” but nothing more.2 8 These complaints highlight Kenney’s out- Despite the cordial and professional na­ look, while Arnold’s responses provide a ture of this exchange, the discussion points glimpse of the wider view of the war. Arnold out that the two airmen saw the war through agreed that heating equipment might have very different lenses. As commanding gen­ little value in Kenney’s theater but pointed eral of the Army Air Forces and a member of out that other commanders needed it and the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Arnold focused on that production lines lacked the flexibility to the entire global struggle. He had to balance make aircraft without heaters. Similarly, he strategic guidance with the current situation noted that other places needed bottom gun and upcoming operations in order to have turrets and that building planes slated for the right number of airplanes and people in Kenney’s use without them would entail ex­ the appropriate areas. In addition he had to cessive delays and costs. Finally, the com­ continually assess the costs and benefits of mands in the Army Air Forces had thor­ producing existing aircraft and equipment oughly debated and tested the elimination of against the need to start research-and-de­ the copilot’s position, concluding that the ad- velopment work on newer types. All the vantages outweighed the drawbacks.31 while he worried about the image of the Kenney matched his imprudent demands Army Air Forces and the debates about ser­ for equipment changes in aircraft production vice independence that would follow the war. with a lack of appreciation for the tactical dif­ Fittingly, Arnold emphasized this expansive ferences between his area of operations and view of the war in his postwar memoir, sym­ others. Based on his previous experience bolically entitled Global Mission. 29 and observations in the South-west Pacific, At the theater level, things looked quite Kenney believed in low-altitude attacks, different. Kenney viewed the war from a using the tactics of what was then called at- much narrower focus and devoted his atten­ tack aviation. Although such tactics might tion to more immediate decisions. He con­ have been valid for the enemy he faced, centrated on the near term and what he had Kenney argued that they were “in evidence 56 AIRPOWER JOURNAL SUMMER 1999 every day all over the world.”3 2 Arnold in- importance. Kenney preferred to promote of­ formed Kenney that he was flat wrong: ficers who had proven themselves in combat “Attack tactics have definitely not . . . proven under his command and distrusted se-nior officers with no combat experience. Although Arnold eventually managed to send some officers to the Southwest Pacific, In his efforts to control the B-29s, Kenney felt he was getting Arnold’s castoffs Kenney found himself not only and quickly ended the experiment.35 Kenney working to carry out the theater dispatched one officer back to Washington commander’s wishes but also going with a comment that he probably applied to so far as to work against the de - many other senior officers sent out: “His sires of his service. mind is not flexible enough and he does not think clearly or fast enough.”3 6 In keeping with his attitude of going against Arnold’s sound ‘every day all over the world’ ” (em- wishes in this area, when asked to send his phasis in original).3 3 Arnold realized, as deputy back to Washington, Kenney howled Kenney evidently did not, that antiaircraft in protest.3 7 guns were causing heavy losses to low-fly­ Kenney’s prodding for more planes, sup- ing aircraft. When the Army Air Forces had plies, and people—although often con­ attempted such low-altitude tactics in ducted with a lack of grace and tact—does Europe, the results were disastrous. On one not suggest that he had no knowledge of the mission all 11 aircraft in a formation that pressures Arnold faced. Indeed, Kenney re­ used these tactics were lost.3 4 alized that Arnold must have found his att-i One can excuse Kenney for not knowing tude exasperating. At one point he even everything that occurred in other theaters, apologized for his incessant complaining: “I but his comments reflect an attitude that ig­ know you are harassed to the point of ex­ nored the wider realities of the war and the haustion and that you are doing your implications of his suggestions. He may not damnedest to keep me quiet, but I will trust have known the conditions in other theaters, to your continued good nature and keep on but this should have made him cautious in telling you my troubles.”38 proposing tactics. Similarly, his background No doubt Kenney’s grumbling was a in aircraft production should have given him source of friction, but throughout most of more insight into the problems that his pro- 1942 and 1943, Arnold overlooked much of posed modifications would cause. At times the griping, realizing—as did Kenney—that Kenney displayed an attitude that melded many of the requests were part of the nor­ arrogance with ignorance—a dangerous mal give-and-take between commander and combination. subordinate. Arnold expected Kenney to Kenney’s provincial attitude extended to solve the problems that he could but knew personnel matters. As commanding general that Kenney would sometimes need assis­ of the Army Air Forces, Arnold believed in tance. In a very real sense, Kenney com­ rotating officers between his staff in peted with the other theater air commanders Washington and the combat areas. Arnold for people and equipment. A B-24 sent to was especially sensitive to this issue and England or the Mediterranean for combat gave it his personal attention because dur­ was one fewer aircraft that would see action ing World War I, he had been stuck in in the South-west Pacific. As Kenney put it, Washington and missed out on combat duty. his complaints were “about the only way I To him, moving people boosted morale and can present the picture as it confronts me.”39 benefited the service. Although this ap­ In short, Arnold expected Kenney’s re- proach proved successful in most theaters, quests, and his position required him to Arnold had difficulty convincing Kenney of its weigh the demands put forward by various COMMAND RELATIONS AT THE OPERATIONAL LEVEL OF WAR 57 B-29s on Guam, 1945. More than any other issue, Kenney’s attempts to gain operational control over the B-29s strained his relationship with Arnold. air commanders. For his part Kenney had to ground or “entice the enemy fighters into “lobby” for the things he needed. combat and destroy them in the air” by se- The record of Kenney’s command—a lecting targets that the opposing air force bright spot for the Army Air Forces during would have to defend. The primary objective this time—also underlay the commanding during these latter attacks was not the target general’s forgiving mood: “You are doing per se, although that might be important too, great things,” Arnold told him.4 0 Perhaps the but the hostile fighters. Kenney admitted that strongest evidence of Arnold’s esteem came the plan sounded deceptively simple, but in in October 1943, when he asked Kenney for reality it made for “a long and difficult job.”43 advice on using airpower in the cross-chan- Arnold appreciated the advice and for- nel invasion of Europe. This was a particu- warded the letter to several officers on his larly bad time in the European air campaign, staff, General Marshall, and General and a troubled Arnold turned to Kenney be- Brereton—the senior American air officer in cause “there has probably been more inge- England planning the cross-channel invasion. nuity displayed in your operations than in In addition, Arnold arranged for Kenney to any other theater.”41 meet with Gen Dwight D. Eisenhower to ex- In a letter to Arnold, Kenney gave a plain his thoughts further. Arnold even sent straightforward reply about his views on air one of Kenney’s deputies, Brig Gen Freddie warfare: “I stick to one principle—get control Smith, to Europe to help implement the of the air situation before you try anything ideas.4 4 else.”42 The best way to accomplish that end Even as Arnold approached Kenney for was to strike aircraft while they were on the advice on the air war in Europe, however, 58 AIRPOWER JOURNAL SUMMER 1999 their relationship had started to sour and used them against the home islands of would actually deteriorate over the coming Japan—not the peripheral areas Kenney months. Although differing perspectives be- mentioned. Even before Kenney’s request, tween the service headquarters and the Arnold had initiated a study of possible theater air commander account for some of bases in China from which to use them the strain between the two, the debate over against Japan itself. The Chinese locations, the B-29 highlights the fact that the source however, would serve only as an interim so­ of the tension was Kenney’s loyalty. lution. Arnold’s real hope for using the B-29s Although Kenney identified with Arnold as to defeat Japan lay in acquiring bases in the an airman, he felt that he owed his primary Mariana Islands. loyalty to his immediate commander, Even after hearing about the plans for the General Mac-Arthur. As Kenney argued, Chinese bases, Kenney continued to lobby “Every once in a while Arnold would get for the aircraft, asking to “borrow” them as sore at me about something or other. He they flew from the United States to China. thought I was still working for him, but I Arnold told Kenney he would think about the wasn’t. I was working for MacArthur.”45 proposal but “could not commit himself to Kenney felt that Arnold exerted a great deal routing any B-29s via Australia.” Even this of influence over air operations in Europe ambiguous response buoyed Kenney’s spir­ and wanted to do the same in the Pacific. its, and he told engineers to give immediate Kenney realized that MacArthur resented priority to building an air depot and length­ any interference from Washington and ening the runways at Darwin, Australia, to would never have agreed to the level of handle 50 of the new bombers.50 control over theater air operations that he The dispute between Kenney and Arnold thought Arnold hoped to exert. Although over the B-29s grew more divisive in early Kenney believed that he acted as a buffer 1944, when it became clear that the between the two, he clearly went beyond bombers would never fly in the Southwest this neutral role.4 6 In his efforts to control Pacific. In January Kenney attended a con­ the B-29s, Kenney found himself not only ference at Pearl Harbor to coordinate plans working to carry out the theater comman­ for the coming year, a meeting that pitted der’s wishes but also going so far as to him squarely against Arnold’s ideas for de­ work against the desires of his service. ploying the B-29s. On the one hand, the of­ Kenney had started pushing for the B-29 fensive through the Central Pacific under the soon after his arrival in Australia. Although the direction of Adm Chester Nimitz would at- bomber was then in the earliest stages of its tack the Mariana Islands and Formosa en development, he proposed using it to elim-i route to Tokyo. MacArthur, on the other nate or neutralize oil refineries and petroleum- hand, would continue his advance through production sites.47 Perhaps prompted by re- New Guinea, move north, and liberate the ports of B-29 test flights, Kenney queried Philippines before invading Japan. Although Washing-ton for information a year later both options would eventually defeat the under the assumption that he would “get the Japanese, combining forces along one axis first B-29 unit.”48 Arnold cautioned against of attack might end the war sooner5.1 putting too much hope in acquiring the air- An important consideration behind the craft in the near future, pointing out that “no Central Pacific thrust was the desire to cap­ units are scheduled for your theater prior to ture the Mariana Islands and base the B-29s June of next year.”49 there. Kenney disagreed with the logic be- Although the commanding general held hind the plan, asserting that the bombing out some hope that Kenney would receive missions against Japan—a “series of costly these aircraft, Arnold and his staff viewed stunts”—would accomplish little.52 Although the B-29s as weapons that would contribute Kenney’s opinion was just one factor in the the most to the war if the Army Air Forces discussions, it must have carried a great

See more

The list of books you might like

Most books are stored in the elastic cloud where traffic is expensive. For this reason, we have a limit on daily download.