if you give a wasp a plane

JUSTIS MCEACHIN

History 499, The United States in the Second World War

April 27, 2020

          On June 21, 1944, not even a year after the formation of the Women Airforce Service Pilots (WASP), the bill H.R. 4219, which would have seen the introduction of these women pilots into the military, was defeated by 19 votes.[1]  It would be another 33 years before the WASPs were given retroactive military status by the Senate[2].  Another 33 years would pass when these women would be awarded the Congressional Gold Medal[3].  However, these women had been fighting for militarization since they were first organized in 1943.  So, what took so long?

​

          In the years following the American entrance to the Second World War, the United States began to come across a prominent issue: pilot shortages.  Jacqueline Cochran, an American pilot known for her racing records and skill in the air[4], had already proposed the idea of a women’s pilot program to help in the war effort, and was eventually able to convince General Henry H. “Hap” Arnold, commanding general of the Army Air Forces, to eventually create the Women Airforce Service Pilots and he would go on to be their number one supporter.  However, these women would only be recognized as civilian pilots employed by the Army, instead of acquiring military status.  With such a powerful ally, convincing Congress to pass a bill militarizing the WASPs should have been easy as pie, yet it took near 30 years after the war and dissolution of the WASPs to happen.  General “Hap” Arnold was even able to get the War Department on his side[5].  Secretary of War Henry L. Stimson was of the opinion that the WASP should join the military, and General “Hap” Arnold would go to many a committee meeting to explain his reasoning and try and get the WASP Bill, H.R. 4219, passed.  Yet, it never happened.  In fact, the entire situation was considered a controversy! The bill did not pass, meaning over half of the members of the House of Representatives unequivocally disagreed with the War Department and the Executive Branch!  How was Congress able to rationalize their decision to disagree with the War Department and deny the WASPs military status?

​

          Women’s roles in society during the Second World War were suddenly transforming as men were leaving the country in waves to fight on the frontlines.  Women were now in uniform, whether that be in factories at home like Rosie the Riveter, or in organizations such as the Women’s Army Auxiliary Corps (WAAC), the Navy Women’s Reserve (WAVES),  the Marine Corps Women’s Reserve, the Coast Guard’s Women’s Reserve (SPAR), and the Women Airforce Service Pilots (WASP).  WAVES, Marine Corps Women’s Reserve, and SPAR were all incorporated into the military, and WAAC would, in 1943, become the Women’s Army Corps (WAC) and also be converted to military status[6].  This left the WASPs, an organization that would never receive military rank during the course of the war.  The country was changing, in fact, the entire world was.  In Britain, women were working for the Air Transport Auxiliary, and soon gained all of the privileges, rank, and pay benefits that their male counterparts received, yet American women pilots could not[7].  Women were receiving recognition and rights equal to men, and this must have scared, startled, and alarmed crotchety Americans stuck in their ways and afraid of change.  General Holcomb, who had been opposed to women joining the Marine Corps was quoted saying, “Like most Marines, when the matter first came up, I didn’t believe women could serve any useful purpose in the Marine Corps… Since then I’ve changed my mind.”[8]  But if these military leaders were for incorporating women into the military, what went wrong with giving the WASPs military status?  Who was actively preventing the WASPs from receiving these benefits?  Who would stand to benefit from the inactivation of the WASP program?

​

          The Civilian Pilot Training Program (CPTP), which began in 1938 at the request of General Henry H. “Hap” Arnold, transformed into, upon learning of the attack on Pearl Harbor in 1941, the War Training Service (WTS).  This program employed and taught thousands of pilots, but in 1944 these programs were becoming discontinued.  Around 17,000 men were furloughed, and these men ended up carrying resentment against General “Hap” Arnold and the WASPs.  It seemed, to them, that they had been replaced by these women, women who, in their opinion, should not even be flying.  Although they were given ample opportunities to become employed, these opportunities were only with the Air Force.  However, if they did not meet the criteria required of them to join the force, they were out of luck.  “Hap” Arnold said they “could go in the factories”[9].  Disgruntled civilian pilots began to lobby Congress against the WASPs.  Their arguments were that, although the plan was to send all able-bodied men overseas, there were plenty of men who believed they could fly but did not fit the strict Air Force regulations.  Either they were too old or were just not trained enough in the specific duties of combat. [10] The War Department and the Air Force would continue to argue that these WASPs were not replacing these male civilian pilots, but these former WTS trainees and instructors could not see it this way.

​

          Why did Congress deny the WASPs military status? How did they rationalize it?  Given the way women were treated during the war, and the horror stories women in the military could tell about the rampant sexism and oppression they experienced from their male coworkers, one might argue Congress was just not ready to admit that women were competent and valid pilots.  There is credibility to that claim and some Congressmen had already made up their minds about how they were voting on the bill due to this fact, but a more complete answer includes the claims that the WASP program was unnecessary, expensive, and undesired; that there was not a serious aviation manpower shortage, using the existence of laid-off WTS trainees and instructors as proof; and a sense of tougher pressure from voters and media than from the military and War Department as well as negative attitudes and portrayals of the women and military leaders championing the WASPs shaped the way these Congressmen were going to vote on H.R. 4219, the WASP bill.

​

          Historians have shown the struggles the WASPs faced in performing their duties and their everyday living, especially with the continued discrimination they received from their male counterparts.  They have delved deep into their fight for militarization and their fight to even create the WASP program.  Historians have dedicated papers on the main players in women’s aviation, like Jacqueline Cochran and Nancy Love, or, when focusing on their disbandment, fixated on cultural beliefs and toxic masculinity, whereas books have more so focused on telling the story of the creation of the WASP and the member’s experiences, both physically flying planes and towing targets, and socially with regards to how they were treated and their living situations.  Assessing these secondary sources emphasized a lack of information regarding specifically the denial of militarization of the WASPs.

​

          Jean H. Cole’s Women Pilots of World War II works as a specific publication of oral histories and interviews with 35 members of 1 specific graduating class of the WASP program.  This source focused on the individual member’s experiences within the WASP program including their sheer determination to succeed, the pride they held in being members of WASP, in spite of the treatment they received, and their feelings towards their lack of militarization in the Army Air Forces, after working so closely with them.[11]  Cole’s work highlights a rare look into the personal experiences of the WASPs and their outlook on their time in the program, but it doe not cover any arguments or reasons for their deactivation, and definitely does not focus on the legal fight happening in Congress in 1944.

​

          The book American Women and Flight since 1940 by Deborah G. Douglas, Amy E. Foster, Alan D. Meyer, and Lucy B. Young tells the story of women in flight, from Jacqueline Cochran and the WASP program to Jeannie Flynn, Air Force’s first woman fighter pilot, to Eileen Collins, NASA’s first woman shuttle commander.[12]  Obviously, the entire scope of this book is far larger than the topic this paper covers, however, this book has been long regarded as one of the best reference works in the field.  It hosts an extremely comprehensive bibliography, including a plethora of government documents.  However, of the government documents it does present, it excludes those speaking on the potential militarization of the WASPs in 1944.

​

          Stephanie M. Cavin’s thesis, Women, War, and Planes: Women Airforce Service Pilots’ Experience Working alongside the Army Air Force during World War II, serves as a great, comprehensive compiling of sources explaining, in detail, the history of the WASPs, including their creation, their responsibilities, their experiences, as well their fight for militarization and attempts to answer the question of why the WASPs were not militarized.[13]  The paper argues that societal ideas of gender roles kept the WASPs out of the military and explores how that status, or lack thereof, affected the women risking their lives to ferry these planes.  This paper does not use any congressional hearings or reports, and instead focuses on more societal reasons as to why the WASPs were never militarized.

​

          Laurie Scrivener’s work U.s. Military Women in World War II: The Spar, Wac, Waves, Wasp, and Women Marines in U.s. Government Publications speaks on a broader subject: women in the armed forces during the Second World War.  This article contains an annotated bibliography which contains wide range of materials, from recruiting brochures and posters to official government publications such as congressional hearings.[14]  Scrivener’s bibliography contains many important congressional hearings instrumental in answering the question of how Congress was able to rationalize not militarizing the WASPs, however Scrivener’s work’s purpose is not answer this question but instead offer use as a resource for further study, which is what If You Give a WASP a Plane intends to do.  

​

          By offering an analysis into the lack of militarization of the WASP program using alternative primary sources, mainly congressional hearings and government correspondence, this paper examines how Congressmen came to their decision on June 21, 1944, those legislators arguing that the WASP program was unnecessary, expensive, and undesired; that the existence of available and recently furloughed WTS trainees and instructors proved that there was not an eminent manpower shortage and the sheer amount of pressure to deny H.R. 4219 passage from media and male civilians to protect their antiquated view on the American idea of masculinity.

​

          Legislators took issue with the existence of the WASP program in the first place, regarding its price and debated whether it was necessary, or even desired.  Even General Henry “Hap” Arnold, a main supporter of the WASPs and their fight for militarization, was unsure about creating the program initially.[15]  But after several years of quiet testing, involving Jackie Cochran, the head of the WASP program, taking women to Britain to aid in their flight program, the WASPs became official.  Yet the cost of the program was always under fire, especially from Congressman Robert C. Word Ramspeck.  Ramspeck was the Chairman of the Committee on the Civil Service and he, along with his committee, submitted a report concerning inquiries regarding militarizing the WASPs, insisting the program was “costly and unnecessary”[16].  The exceptionally convincing report presents facts against the WASP program, like the cost of the program in public funds reaching $100,000,000, the War Department having already spent over $500,000,000, and the lack of legislation allowing the War Department to have even started the women’s flight program.[17]  The report also found that the cost presented by the War Department, that of $6,540.90 per graduate, was actually $12,150 when analyzing further detailed figures.[18]  The argument carries into a lack of reason to create more pilots, arguing that after the war, there will already be a surplus of pilots, and that creating more pilots will just add to that surplus.  The Ramspeck Report, as it would become known as, was very influential among the members of the House, and was constantly referenced in hearings.  Ideas displayed in the Ramspeck Report were also touted by other politicians and were even on display in newspaper opinions.  Congressmen were able to take these ideas and use them to justify voting no on H.R. 4219, thus preventing the WASPs from obtaining military status.

Not every congressman was in agreeance with Mr. Ramspeck, though, and nearly half of the House would vote yes on the WASP bill.  In a report from J. Buell Snyder and the Committee on Appropriations writes “The members of the subcommittee… agree with General Arnold that [the WASP] should be given a military status and have… the same rights, privileges, and benefits to which such male pilots are entitled”.[19]  An entire subcommittee was for the WASP bill, and furthermore, the price of the WASPS as outlined in this report contradicts entirely with the cost in the Ramspeck Report.  Here, it is said the bill will, to cover tuition, pay, and clothing, give the WASPs $6,391,250.  Additionally, the later pages of the report detail amounts appropriated for the 1944 fiscal year, and the Air Corps was given $23,655,481,000 for general expenses.  Given this large amount of money, the WASPs, considering the $50,000,000 or even the $100,000,000 quotes from the Ramspeck report, was not an entirely unjustly expensive maneuver.  Relative to the rather large budget of the Air Corps, the WASP was wholly within only a fraction that cost.  It also important to note, that the Air Corps had actually saved a good portion of its budget from the previous fiscal year.[20]  Out of the money allocated to them, they were able to not use all of it, further displaying the practicality of their budget decisions.

​

          Still, congressmen found these WASPs to be unwanted, unneeded, and even under qualified.  Again, returning to the Ramspeck Report, the Committee on the Civil Service found that the standards at which the WASP trainees were evaluated at had declined.  The age limit had been lowered from the standard 21 years to 18 and the required hours reduced to 35 hours from 500.[21]  That’s a significant drop in requirements.  In addition to these drops in requirements, the report presented the five classifications WASPs were placed into, and came to these conclusions.  Only 3 of the 285 WASP pilots with Air Transport Command can fly 4 engine bombers and transports, (class 5) and those 3 had entered the WASP with over a thousand hours of flying each.  11 more WASPs were qualified in class 4 and these pilots had also already had an excess of experience prior.  The committee also found that it would take a substantial amount of time for those proficient in class 1 to move to class 3.  Finally, the committee found that elimination of trainees resulted in a total loss for taxpayers, totaling out to $860,237.04 with 541 graduates.[22]  Presented with this information, militarization was looking far from reality.  According to the Ramspeck Report, the WASP program at Sweetwater was producing less than qualified pilots.  Their inexperience was apparent and the amount of resources that would be required to produce more experienced pilots capable of flying the hotter aircraft was enormous.  Though this does not directly prove that these pilots don’t deserve the distinction as military personnel, this information would prove to be vitally useful to congressman looking to point to rationales to discredit the usefulness of those pilots already trained and aiding the Air Corps.  Any negative justifications these congressmen could use to rationalize their refusal to incorporate the WASPs into the Air Corps would be used, and the Ramspeck Report is a very useful document for the naysayers.

​

          However, the presented lack of utility and glaring costliness of the WASPs would not win over every vote, but the unemployment of trained pilots and seemingly unfair treatment of the pilots who came through the Civilian Pilot Training (CPT) program and later the War Training Service (WTS).  Congressman James H. Morrison, undoubtedly informed by the Ramspeck Report, extended his remarks on June 19, 1944, commenting on “the real facts concerning the controversy between the WASPS and the C.A.A-W.T.S programs”.[23]  Morrison complains about the loss of skilled pilots to the “walking army” instead of utilizing their experience in the Air Forces, where instead the Air Forces are training 5,000 WASPs who, upon graduating, will not be as skilled as these WTS trainees.  According to Morrison, there were over 10,000 civilian pilots available to work the same jobs the WASPs were undertaking.  He also states that, in an ironic twist of fate, former WTS instructors, these men being very well experienced pilots, were being delegated to cleaning and servicing positions, wiping windshields and checking the planes’ functionalities, in order to allow a novice WASP to fly unencumbered.  Morrison then goes on to list a few war heroes trained in the CPT: Maj. Joe Foss, Capt. Richard Bong, and Capt. Walker Mahurin, who, all together, shot down almost 60 planes; three-fourths of the Eagle Squadron known for winning the Battle of Britain; some of the pilots who participated in the Doolittle Raid on Tokyo; and finally members of a squadron that shot down 27 planes during the Battle of Midway.[24]    For these reasons and more, Morrison makes his that  “There is absolutely no need for girl pilots in the Army at this time and there are thousands of men pilots at this moment unacceptable for combat who are begging for an opportunity to fly in the ferry command.”[25]

​

          A key argument held by WASP supporters is the idea that they are aiding in fixing a serious manpower shortage.  This is an argument that General Henry “Hap” Arnold uses multiple times, especially in the hearing before the Committee on Military Affairs.  General Arnold says “Right at this moment the Army is short over 200,000 men; in spite of the fact that certain of our fighting units have been demobilized, that we made saving wherever possible in our overhead, we have replaced older men wherever we could for younger men”.[26]  However, according to the Ramspeck Report, 3,713 pilot trainees became military personnel following the cancelation of the WTS program but were not placed in roles that fit their training.[27]  Furthermore, the report found 9 sources of experienced and trained pilots and it was of the opinion of the committee that this surplus be exhausted before additional training and enlistment of WASPs could be reasonable, not to mention even considering militarizing them.[28]  And this estimate of potential pilots, fliers that could fill in this manpower shortage, is on the low end.  In a hearing with the Subcommittee of the Committee on Military Affairs, James H. Morrison of Louisiana introduces an article titled “Airport of Aces” from the Saturday Evening Post to show that it seems the United States have “too many pilots”, and complains that “we can’t even use the 10,000 men who are equipped to fly”.[29]  Additionally, the Ramspeck Committee described their concern that the WASP bill was basically proposing the training and recruiting of inexperienced personnel rather than using the already existing supply of service pilots.  Not only does this training cost a great amount in public funds, anywhere from $50,000,000 to $100,000,000, but these flight instructors already have such a great wealth of experience that any new trainee, regardless if they are a part of WASP or WTS, would never garner the amount of hours these instructors already have, not in any short amount of time that is.[30]  With such a large number of available pilots being used instead for ground support or placed into the reserves, the idea to train, at a very high expense, 5,000 WASPs seemed nonsensical to many congressmen, like Mr. Morrison.

When regarding unfair treatment of these former CPT or WTS pilots, Morrison describes in instance where “one fellow” was treated as if he was not truly part of the military.  Morrisons explains how the man was thrown out of a United States Organizations club, he’s unrecognized by an MP because of his odd looking uniform, then feels betrayed by his own government when he reads that the WASP uniforms “were tailored on Fifth Avenue at a cost of $505 per WASP”.[31]  The Ramspeck Report found that these former CPT and WTS pilots were not screened properly.  They learned that there were three ways to screen former pilots, but none of these approaches took into consideration the furloughed pilots’ experience or skill, and that “The chance to qualify appears prejudicial”.[32] 

​

          Morrison, in his extension of remarks on June 19, 1944, compares General Arnold’s testimonies to the Ramspeck Report and even to other times Arnold or the Army Air Forces had contradicted themselves.  Morrison states, matter-of-factly, “Gen. Henry H. Arnold in his testimony before a congressional committee stated that these men had the C.A.A. brand on them.  From that it can evidently be taken that a C. A. A. brand is something that is undesirable and not wanted.”[33]  However, he shows a quote from General Arnold in which Arnold contradicts this statement, explaining how the C.A.A (Civil Aeronautics Authority) aided the Army Air Forces by altering their training programs to devote themselves to turning out some 350,000 pilots, when the Army Air Forces originally only consisted of less than 7,000 pilots.[34]  Morrison then focuses on the issue of the shortage of manpower, quoting Arnold’s statement before the House Military Affairs Committee in which Arnold explains the Army is short 200,000 men.  He then juxtaposes this quote with the Ramspeck Committee’s findings, in which the report states that the evidence presented in favor of the purported manpower shortage is “neither actual nor probable” explaining that if the manpower shortage was real then the United States would be in a worse situation than any of their allies and enemies.[35]  Morrison continues on the offensive, quoting General Arnold yet again, this time attacking Arnold’s view of the WASPs.  Arnold says, “These women fliers are of the caliber such that they can fly, some of them, all types of airplanes.  Other are working up to that category.  The numbers that can fly all types of aircraft will, in my opinion, vary, just the same as it does with men pilots.”[36]  The Ramspeck Report shows that this statement from Arnold is purposefully vague, since the number of WASPs that can actually fly these planes is, well, low.  As previously stated in this paper, only 3 WASPs can fly all manner of planes, and only 11 are Class 4.  Finally, Morrison attacks the WASPs standards, using a quote where Arnold stated that he would not lower the standards for any WASPs.  The Ramspeck Report, as it has been stated early, found that they did in fact lower their standards, from 500 required hours to just 35, and from 21 years of age to just 18 ½.  The Congressman even includes an anecdote where a WASP was given a medal, and General Arnold bragged about the fact.  But in reality, that WASP actually felt as though she didn’t deserve it and refused to wear it, that she received the medal for publicity purposes only.[37]  Whether this is true or not, it comes from a congressman, and was sure to have been convincing to some, especially when Arnold had, at this point, been made out to be less than truthful himself.  Morrison is able to argue, quite effectively, in front of the House, that Arnold is either confused or a hypocrite and a liar. 

          Congress was also receiving tons of pressure from former CPT and WTS pilots as well as media outlets who would post opinions supporting the furloughed pilots, condemning the WASPs, assisting in reducing the society’s attitude towards these women flyers.  The Civil Aeronautics Authority (CAA) found an ally in James H. Morrison, who would include editorials, articles, and opinions in favor of former WTS pilots session after congressional session.  The article included by Mr. Morrison on May 18th starts with a sentiment many recently furloughed pilots were feeling: “Guess I’m just a swoose”.[38]  At the time, The Swoose was a U.S. B-17 who got its name from a popular song “Alexander the Swoose” about a bird who was half swan and half goose.[39]  The article goes on to explain why Dick, the recently identified swoose, cannot think himself as either swan nor goose, and in extrapolation, why no WTS pilots can identify with either group.  Dick is described as wearing an Army uniform, carrying an ID card that labels him “enlisted”, yet he does not receive Army privileges.  He cannot acquire USO benefits, is by an MP, did not receive a just Army salary, and his room and board were much worse than his more official Army comrades.  When he tries to leave, he finds he may not be eligible for another job, because of his Army status.  How did he get this point?  He’s been told by the Army that they have plenty of flyers, which contradicts General Arnold’s point that there is a serious manpower shortage.  Since the Army’s pilot attrition was lower than expected, there is now around 10,000 extra pilots that aren’t being used.  Dick then wonders why the Army is training WASPs when there were thousands of WTS instructors with a thousand hours of flying experience each?  He says, “If the Army has pilots running out of its ears, why is the Army Air Forces running a full-page ad, as it did this week in Collier’s to recruit boys of 18 in the Civil Air Patrol, auxiliary of the Army Air Forces”.[40] Dick, and many other CAA instructors and pilots feel as Dick does, and this animosity was reaching Congress’s ears regularly.

​

          As the pressure from media and WTS pilots grew, so did the number of articles included in the appendix of every House meeting, many of these negative.  On June 3rd, 1944, articles from Aero Digest, Time Magazine, Aviation News were included, all of which presented arguments for why the WASPs should be discontinued.  From Aero Digest, “it is felt that it is wasteful to continue to train them when there are so many pilots already available”; from Time Magazine, “the militarization of Cochran's WASPS is not necessary or desirable; the present program should be immediately and sharply curtailed”; and from Aviation News, “The evidence so far indicates someone has blundered. The costly and impractical WASP program deserves close scrutiny”[41].  A testimony from a former WTS trainee was added to the congressional record, in which the trainee complained about favoritism, arguing that these “professional women” were really just “fly-by-night”  and “glamour-seeking”, and inspired by the movie “Ladies Courageous”.[42]  He also complained that those who did not complete the WASP program got to return to civilian life, whereas men or even WACs did not receive that same generosity.  With this many important news outlets and WTS pilots arguing against the WASPs existence, it is hard to convince congressmen, who are already unwelcoming to women joining the workforce let alone the military, that militarizing yet another woman corps is a constructive concept.

​

          Congressmen also tried to instill into the minds of their fellow members of congress a portrayal of the WASPs that belittled their reputation as tough “Rosie the Riveter” types and instead brought thoughts of the stereotypical young American girl.  In almost every instance in which the WASPs were referred to in an argument negative to their existence, they were described as “girls” instead of “women”, “teens” instead of “adults”, etc.  The Ramspeck Report refers to newly recruited WASPs as former “teen-aged schoolgirls, stenographers, clerks, beauticians, housewives, and factory workers”[43].  There is also a series of arguments made that is more gossip than fact, yet it is there just to damage the WASPs reputation.  The Idaho Statesman, a newspaper out of Boise, released an article suggesting that the reason WASPs are receiving priority in the Army Air Forces is because of “the sentimental softness of American men in regard to their women”, even going as far to say that “dimples have a devastating effect even on the generals”[44].  An article that appeared in the Washington Times-Herald, written by Austine Cassini titled “These Charming People”, belittles the entire WASP militarization movement.  Cassini calls Jacqueline Cochran “slim, brown-eyed ‘Jackie’”, “the shapely pilot”, and “an attractive composition of wind-blown bob, smiling eyes, and outdoor skin”.  Cassini further explains a rumor that General Arnold is pushing for WASP militarization in an attempt to woo Jackie Cochran.  Cassini says, “he’s battling like a knight of olde, or olde knight, for ‘the faire Cochran.’… Jackie’s commission has been approved, if the captivated general is victorious in his tournaments.”[45]  These descriptions of WASPs and rumors about their leaders are used to not only implicate them in a controversy but also to further degrade their character, giving rise to notions that these women are not fit to enter the military because they are too crude, cocky, and undeserving.

​

          It all came down to that day the WASP bill was voted on.  It was defeated on June 21, 1944, but why?  The furloughed pilots of the Civil Aeronautics Authority’s War Training Service program were outraged at the idea that women were taking jobs they thought they deserved themselves, and the CAA found its allies in Congress with representatives like James H. Morrison and Robert C. Word Ramspeck, men who would slam the WASP for its inefficiencies.  A plethora of data would be whipped up claiming that these CAA pilots were more than capable of doing the WASPs jobs, and, adding fuel to the controversial fire, claiming these pilots were mistreated by the Army Air Forces as the AAF misused and miscounted their actual resource pool.  The CAA also found allies in the media, where magazine after magazine article and newspaper after newspaper editorial criticized the WASPs and the Army Air Forces for not using these recently employed pilots.  These articles found their way into the Congressional Record session after session, convincing those congressmen who would be easily swayed to deny women militarization, especially when the best argument from the other side was to just let the Army Air Forces decide the WASPs fate.  But the CAA and House representatives knew how to tear that argument down, and that was by illegitimating the Army Air Forces decision making, pointing to the inaccuracies of General Henry H. “Hap” Arnold and the AAF’s statements and even churning through the rumor mill to depreciate the General’s trustworthiness. 

​

          All of these efforts were enough, but barely, as H.R. 4219 was defeated by just 19 votes.  The naysayers had a difficult time convincing the entire voting body to rethink their admiration for the Army Air Forces and the military in general, especially during wartime when patriotism was at an all time high, and the Army Air Forces was doing an incredible job and was currently winning the war.  But, since these efforts to not militarize the WASPs were targeted at women, the task was a bit easier, and the naysayers were able to cast enough doubt on the efficiency and aptitude of the WASP program and introduce heightened sympathies for the wronged and mistreated CAA WTS trainees and instructors by highlighting the expensiveness of the WASP program, the lack of a valid claim that there was actually a serious manpower shortage in the U.S., and manufacturing uncertainty of the War Department’s sympathies for its own military personnel, pointing to favoritism for the WASPs, a group that was claimed to represent all the aspects of people Americans should dislike.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Primary Sources

Alexander the Swoose, 1944.

Appendix to the Congressional Record, April 20, 1944, Appendix to the Congressional Record, April 20, 1944 § (1944).

Appendix to the Congressional Record, May 18, 1944, Appendix to the Congressional Record, May 18, 1944 § (1944).

Appendix to the Congressional Record, May 29, 1944, Appendix to the Congressional Record, May 29, 1944 § (1944).

Appendix to the Congressional Record, June 1, 1944, Appendix to the Congressional Record, June 1, 1944 § (1944).

Appendix to the Congressional Record, June 2, 1944, Appendix to the Congressional Record, June 2, 1944 § (1944).

Appendix to the Congressional Record, June 3, 1944, Appendix to the Congressional Record, June 3, 1944 § (1944).

Appendix to the Congressional Record, June 7, 1944, Appendix to the Congressional Record, June 7, 1944 § (1944).

Appendix to the Congressional Record, June 8, 1944, Appendix to the Congressional Record, June 8, 1944 § (1944).

Appendix to the Congressional Record, June 10, 1944, Appendix to the Congressional Record, June 10, 1944 § (1944).

Appendix to the Congressional Record, June 12, 1944, Appendix to the Congressional Record, June 12, 1944 § (1944).

Appendix to the Congressional Record, June 15, 1944, Appendix to the Congressional Record, June 15, 1944 § (1944).

Appendix to the Congressional Record, June 16, 1944, Appendix to the Congressional Record, June 16, 1944 § (1944).

Appendix to the Congressional Record, June 17, 1944, Appendix to the Congressional Record, June 17, 1944 § (1944).

Appendix to the Congressional Record, June 19, 1944, Appendix to the Congressional Record, June 19, 1944 § (1944).

Appendix to the Congressional Record, June 20, 1944, Appendix to the Congressional Record, June 20, 1944 § (1944).

Barden, Graham Arthur, Richard Pillsbury Gale, Christian Archibald Herter, Clarence Evans Kilburn, Robert C. Word Ramspeck, and Winifred Claire Stanley. INVESTIGATION OF CIVILIAN EMPLOYMENT, INVESTIGATION OF CIVILIAN EMPLOYMENT § (1944).

Cassini, Austine. “These Charming People.” Washington Times-Herald, May 23, 1944.

Congressional Record – House, May 18, 1944, Congressional Record – House, May 18, 1944 § (1944).

Congressional Record – Senate, May 29, 1944, Congressional Record – Senate, May 29, 1944 § (1944).

Congressional Record – House, May 29, 1944, Congressional Record – House, May 29, 1944 § (1944).

Congressional Record – Senate, May 31, 1944, Congressional Record – Senate, May 31, 1944 § (1944).

Congressional Record – House, May 31, 1944, Congressional Record – House, May 31, 1944 § (1944).

Congressional Record – House, June 2, 1944, Congressional Record – House, June 2, 1944 § (1944).

Congressional Record – House, June 3, 1944, Congressional Record – House, June 3, 1944 § (1944).

Congressional Record – Senate, June 8, 1944, Congressional Record – Senate, June 8, 1944 § (1944).

Congressional Record – House, June 8, 1944, Congressional Record – House, June 8, 1944 § (1944).

Congressional Record – House, June 10, 1944, Congressional Record – House, June 10, 1944 § (1944).

Congressional Record – Senate, June 12, 1944, Congressional Record – Senate, June 12, 1944 § (1944).

Congressional Record – Senate, June 16, 1944, Congressional Record – Senate, June 16, 1944 § (1944).

Congressional Record – House, June 16, 1944, Congressional Record – House, June 16, 1944 § (1944).

Congressional Record – House, June 17, 1944, Congressional Record – House, June 17, 1944 § (1944).

Congressional Record – Senate, June 19, 1944, Congressional Record – House, June 19, 1944 § (1944).

Congressional Record – House, June 19, 1944, Congressional Record – House, June 19, 1944 § (1944).

Congressional Record – Senate, June 20, 1944, Congressional Record – Senate, June 20, 1944 § (1944).

Congressional Record – House, June 20, 1944, Congressional Record – House, June 20, 1944 § (1944).

Hearing held before Subcommittee of the Committee on Military Affairs, 2 Hearing held before Subcommittee of the Committee on Military Affairs § (1944).

PROVIDING FOR THE APPOINTMENT OF FEMALE PILOTS AND AVIATION CADETS OF. THE ARMY AIR FORCES, PROVIDING FOR THE APPOINTMENT OF FEMALE PILOTS AND AVIATION CADETS OF. THE ARMY AIR FORCES § (1944).

“Records.” Records | World Air Sports Federation. Fédération Aéronautique Internationale. Accessed April 20, 2020. https://www.fai.org/records?f[0]=field_record_sport:2020&f[1]=field_athlete%3Atitle_field:Jacqueline Cochran&record=&order=field_date_single_custom&sort=asc.

“SENATE FAVORS BENEFITS FOR WOMEN FERRY PILOTS.” The New York Times, October 23, 1977. https://www.nytimes.com/1977/10/23/archives/senate-favors-benefits-for-women-ferry-pilots.html.

Snyder, J. B. MILITARY ESTABLISHMENT APPROPRIATION BILL, 1945, MILITARY ESTABLISHMENT APPROPRIATION BILL, 1945 § (1944).

“WASP MILITARIZATION FAVORED BY STIMSON.” The New York Times, May 5, 1944. https://timesmachine.nytimes.com/timesmachine/1944/05/05/96410946.pdf?pdf_redirect=true&ip=0.

Secondary Source Books

Cole, Jean Hascall. Women Pilots of World War II. Salt Lake City: University of Utah Press, 1995.

Stremlow, Mary V. Free a Marine to Fight: Women Marines in World War Ii. Place of publication not identified: Diane Pub Co, 1996.

Secondary Source Articles

Cavin, Stephanie Michelle. The University of Texas - Pan American, 2015. https://search.proquest.com/docview/1706876974/abstract/D9FDDE72AC994DB8PQ/1?accountid=14541.

Douglas, Deborah G. American Women and Flight since 1940. Lexington: The University Press of Kentucky, 2015.

Schrader, Helena P. “Winged Auxiliaries: Women Pilots in the UK and US during World War Two.” Journal of Navigation 59, no. 2 (June 2006): 187–99. https://doi.org/10.1017/s0373463306003651.

Scrivener, Laurie. “U.s. Military Women in World War II: The Spar, Wac, Waves, Wasp, and Women Marines in U.s. Government Publications.” Journal of Government Information. Pergamon, August 19, 1999. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1352023799000519.

“Women in the United States Army.” Women in the U.S. Army | The United States Army. United States Army. Accessed April 20, 2020. https://www.army.mil/women/history/pilots.html.

“WWII Female Pilots Honored With Gold Medal.” NPR. NPR, March 10, 2010. https://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=124533914.

[1] “Women in the United States Army,” Women in the U.S. Army | The United States Army (United States Army), accessed April 20, 2020, https://www.army.mil/women/history/pilots.html)

[2] “SENATE FAVORS BENEFITS FOR WOMEN FERRY PILOTS,” The New York Times, October 23, 1977, p. 23, https://www.nytimes.com/1977/10/23/archives/senate-favors-benefits-for-women-ferry-pilots.html)

[3] “WWII Female Pilots Honored With Gold Medal,” NPR (NPR, March 10, 2010), https://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=124533914)

[4] “Records,” Records | World Air Sports Federation (Fédération Aéronautique Internationale), accessed April 20, 2020

[5] “WASP MILITARIZATION FAVORED BY STIMSON,” The New York Times, May 5, 1944, p. 2, https://timesmachine.nytimes.com/timesmachine/1944/05/05/96410946.pdf?pdf_redirect=true&ip=0)

[6] Laurie Scrivener, “U.s. Military Women in World War II: The Spar, Wac, Waves, Wasp, and Women Marines in U.s. Government Publications,” Journal of Government Information (Pergamon, August 19, 1999), https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1352023799000519)

[7] Helena P. Schrader, “Winged Auxiliaries: Women Pilots in the UK and US during World War Two,” Journal of Navigation 59, no. 2 (June 2006): pp. 187-199, https://doi.org/10.1017/s0373463306003651)

[8] Mary V. Stremlow, Free a Marine to Fight: Women Marines in World War Ii (Place of publication not identified: Diane Pub Co, 1996))

[9] “Military Establishment Appropriation Bill For 1945,” Military Establishment Appropriation Bill For 1945 § (1944))

[10] Ibid. p. 308

[11] Jean Hascall Cole, Women Pilots of World War II (Salt Lake City: University of Utah Press, 1995))

[12] Deborah G. Douglas, American Women and Flight since 1940 (Lexington: The University Press of Kentucky, 2015))

[13] Stephanie Michelle. Cavin (The University of Texas - Pan American, 2015), https://search.proquest.com/docview/1706876974/abstract/D9FDDE72AC994DB8PQ/1?accountid=14541)

[14] Laurie Scrivener, “U.s. Military Women in World War II: The Spar, Wac, Waves, Wasp, and Women Marines in U.s. Government Publications,” Journal of Government Information 26, no. 4 (August 19, 1999): pp. 361-383, https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/S1352-0237(99)00051-9)

[15] James H. Morrison, “Congressional Record,” Congressional Record § (1944), pp. 6229)

[16] Graham Arthur Barden et al., “CONCERNING INQUIRIES MADE OF CERTAIN PROPOSALS FOR THE EXPANSION AND CHANGE IN CIVIL SERVICE STATUS OF THE WASPS,” INVESTIGATION OF CIVILIAN EMPLOYMENT § (1944), pp. 1-13)

[17] Ibid.

[18] Ibid.

[19] J. B. Snyder, “MILITARY ESTABLISHMENT APPROPRIATION BILL, 1945,” MILITARY ESTABLISHMENT APPROPRIATION BILL, 1945 § (1944))

[20] Ibid.

[21] Barden et al., “CONCERNING INQUIRIES“ § (1944), pp. 1-13

[22] Ibid p. 6-9

[23] James H. Morrison, “Congressional Record,” Congressional Record § (1944), pp. 6229-6232)

[24] Ibid pp. 6230

[25] Ibid pp. 6229

[26] Henry H. Arnold, “PROVIDING FOR THE APPOINTMENT OF FEMALE PILOTS AND AVIATION CADETS OF THE ARMY AIR FORCES,” § (1944))

[27] Barden et al., “CONCERNING INQUIRIES“ § (1944), pp. 3

[28] Ibid, pp. 12

[29] “Hearing Held before Subcommittee of the Committee on Military Affairs,” 2 § (1944))

[30] Barden et al., “CONCERNING INQUIRIES“ § (1944), pp. 3

[31] “Hearing Held before Subcommittee”, pp. 6230

[32] Barden et al., “CONCERNING INQUIRIES“ § (1944), pp. 11

[33] “Hearing Held before Subcommittee”, pp. 6230

[34] Ibid, pp. 6230

[35] Ibid, pp. 6230

[36] Ibid, pp. 6231

[37] Ibid, pp. 6231

[38] “Appendix to the Congressional Record, May 18, 1944”, May 18, 1944 § (1944), pp. A2455-A2456

[39] Alexander the Swoose, 1941

[40] “Appendix” May 18, 1944 § (1944), pp.A2456

[41] “Appendix to the Congressional Record, June 3, 1944”, June 3, 1944 § (1944), pp. A2741-A2773

[42] “Appendix to the Congressional Record, June 7, 1944”, June 7, 1944 § (1944), pp. A2836

[43] Barden et al., “CONCERNING INQUIRIES“ § (1944), pp. 11

[44] “Appendix to the Congressional Record, June 8, 1944”, June 8, 1944 § (1944), pp. A2879

[45] Austine Cassini, “These Charming People,” Washington Times-Herald, May 23, 1944)