Welcome to the WWII Forums! Log in or Sign up to interact with the community.

50 destroyers for bases deal

Discussion in 'Atlantic Naval Conflict' started by JCFalkenbergIII, Apr 20, 2008.

  1. JCFalkenbergIII

    JCFalkenbergIII Expert

    Joined:
    Jan 23, 2008
    Messages:
    10,480
    Likes Received:
    426
    For bf109 Emil who asked this,

    "I have a question pertaining to the Atlantic battle...the USA gave Britian i believe 50 destroyers in exchange for a number of ports or bases for 99 years...in 2039 these bases revert back to the British Commonwealth, much the same as Hong Kong was turned over to China...does anyone know which ports, the USN will lose, and how this will effect the balance of sea-power, and logistics within the world after 2039??? i listed a post about this, but i believe the agreement was for 99 years, but maybe i was wrong, can someone maybe enlighten??"

    Here is the Destroyers for Bases Agreement, 2 September 1940

    The Secretary of State (Hull) to the British Ambassador (Lothian)
    Department of State
    Washington
    September 2, 1940.​
    Excellency:

    I have received your note of September 2, 1940, of which the text is as follows:

    I have the honour under instructions from His Majesty's Principal Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs to inform you that in view of the friendly and sympathetic interest of His Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom in the national security of the United States and their desire to strengthen the ability of the United States to cooperate effectively with the other nations of the Americas in the defence of the Western Hemisphere, His Majesty's Government will secure the grant to the Government of the United States, freely and without consideration, of the lease for immediate Establishment and use of naval and air bases and facilities for entrance thereto and the operation and protection thereof, on the Avalon Peninsula and on the southern coast of Newfoundland, and on the east coast and on the Great Bay of Bermuda.

    Furthermore, in view of the above and in view of the desire of the United States to acquire additional air and naval bases in the Caribbean and in British Guiana, and without endeavouring to place a monetary or commercial value upon the many tangible and intangible rights and properties involved, His Majesty's Government will make available to the United States for immediate establishment and use naval and air bases and facilities for entrance thereto and the operation and protection thereof, on the eastern side of the Bahamas, the southern coast of Jamaica, the western coast of St. Lucia, the west coast of Trinidad in the Gulf of Paria, in the island of Antigua and in British Guiana within fifty miles of Georgetown, in exchange for naval and military equipment and material which the United States Government will transfer to His Majesty's Government.

    All the bases and facilities referred to in the preceding paragraphs will be leased to the United States for a period of ninety- nine years, free from all rent and charges other than such compensation to be mutually agreed on to be paid by the United States in order to compensate the owners of private property for loss by expropriation or damage arising out of the establishment of the bases and facilities in question.

    His Majesty's Government, in the leases to be agreed upon, will grant to the United States for the period of the leases all the rights, power, and authority within the bases leased, and within the limits of the territorial waters and air spaces adjacent to or in the vicinity of such bases, necessary to provide access to and defence of such bases, and appropriate provisions for their control.

    Without prejudice to the above-mentioned rights of the United States authorities and their jurisdiction within the leased areas, the adjustment and reconciliation between the jurisdiction of the authorities of the United States within these areas and the jurisdiction of the authorities of the territories in which these areas are situated, shall be determined by common agreement.

    The exact location and bounds of the aforesaid bases, the necessary seaward, coast and anti-aircraft defences, the location of sufficient military garrisons, stores and other necessary auxiliary facilities shall be determined by common agreement. His Majesty's Government are prepared to designate immediately experts to meet with experts of the United States for these purposes. Should these experts be unable to agree in any particular situation, except in the case of Newfoundland and Bermuda, the matter shall be settled by the Secretary of State of the United States and His Majesty's Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs.

    I am directed by the President to reply to your note as follows: The Government of the United States appreciates the declarations and the generous action of His Majesty's Government as contained in your communication which are destined to enhance the national security of the United States and greatly to strengthen its ability to cooperate effectively with the other nations of the Americas in the defense of the Western Hemisphere. It therefore gladly accepts the proposals.

    The Government of the United States will immediately designate experts to meet with experts designated by His Majesty's Government to determine upon the exact location of the naval and air bases mentioned in your communication under acknowledgment.

    In consideration of the declarations above quoted, the Government of the United States will immediately transfer to His Majesty's Government fifty United States Navy' destroyers generally referred to as the twelve hundred-ton type.

    Accept, Excellency, the renewed assurances of my highest consideration.

    Cordell Hull
    His Excellency
    The Right Honorable The Marquess of Lothian, C. H.,
    British Ambassador.

    Destroyers for Bases Agreement, 1941
     
  2. JCFalkenbergIII

    JCFalkenbergIII Expert

    Joined:
    Jan 23, 2008
    Messages:
    10,480
    Likes Received:
    426
    The bases.

    Antigua - Naval Air Station, Sea Plane Base
    British Guiana - Naval Air Station, Sea Plane Base
    Jamaica - Naval Air Station, Sea Plane Base
    St. Lucia - Naval Air Station, Sea Plane Base
    Bermuda - Naval Air Station, Sea Plane Base
    Newfoundland - Three Army Air Force Bases (Pepperell, Goose Bay and Stephenville), Naval Operating Base Argentia and numerous Marine and Army Bases and Detachments, 88 in total
    Trinidad - Naval Operating Base, Naval Air Station, Sea Plane Base, Lighter Than Air (Blimp) Base and Radio Station


    Destroyers For Bases Deal
     
  3. T. A. Gardner

    T. A. Gardner Genuine Chief

    Joined:
    Aug 5, 2003
    Messages:
    6,131
    Likes Received:
    894
    Location:
    Phoenix Arizona
    I also suspect that none of these is currently a US operational base and all are closed.
     
  4. Slipdigit

    Slipdigit Good Ol' Boy Staff Member WW2|ORG Editor

    Joined:
    May 21, 2007
    Messages:
    18,045
    Likes Received:
    2,364
    Location:
    Alabama
    As of 2004:

    Antigua - Naval Air Station, Sea Plane Base---Coolidge AFB closed, Antigua Air Station remains open on a part of the old base.
    British Guiana - Naval Air Station, Sea Plane Base - -Lease terminated 1966 now Cheddi Jagan International Airport
    Jamaica - Naval Air Station, Sea Plane Base Closed 1949
    St. Lucia - Naval Air Station, Sea Plane Base Beane AFB closed 1949
    Bermuda - Naval Air Station, Sea Plane Base NAS Bermuda closed 1995
    Newfoundland - Three Army Air Force Bases (Pepperell, Goose Bay and Stephenville), Naval Operating Base Argentia and numerous Marine and Army Bases and Detachments, 88 in total Ernest Harmon AFB closed 1966, McAndrew AFB tranferred to Navy closed 1994, Pepperell AFB closed 1961
    Trinidad - Naval Operating Base, Naval Air Station, Sea Plane Base, Lighter Than Air (Blimp) Base and Radio Station Carlsen AFB closed 1949


    These Closed 1949
    Atkinsion AFB, British Guiana
    Beane AFB, St. Lucia
    Carlsen AFB, Trinidad
    Coolidge AFB, Antigua
    Vernam AFB, Jamaica
    Waller AFB, Trinidad
     
  5. JCFalkenbergIII

    JCFalkenbergIII Expert

    Joined:
    Jan 23, 2008
    Messages:
    10,480
    Likes Received:
    426
    Thanks Jeff!! That answers that :) .
     
  6. canadiancitizen

    canadiancitizen Member

    Joined:
    Apr 21, 2008
    Messages:
    66
    Likes Received:
    12
    As regards the Argentia, Newfoundland base, it was still a very active USN submarine base, into the early 1990's. Had a average base population of about 6,000 USN and USMC personnel.

    I have a friend whose father was one of the first Newfoundlanders to be hired at that base, in 1943, as a plumber. He stayed on utill he retired in 1980. He was paid in US dollars and was allowed to shop at the PX, and his kids attended the base school, and used all the base recreation facilities, such as the pool and movie theatre. He gets a USN pension now and has VA medical rights.

    The base was returned to Canadian control in 1995, and WE ARE STILL CLEANING IT UP. Huge amounts of PCBs and other chemicals are still being removed from the soil there. The US Government has refused to pay for any of that clean up.

    Cornerbrook and Goose Bay/Happy Valley are now Canadian airports and during the North American aviation "shut down " after the September 11th attacks, they were knee deep in commercial air planes, that had been diverted from their original USA destinations.

    We called it ........ " Twenty Five thousand people are dropping in for dinner and staying for 4 days ". In typical Newfie style they fed and housed thousands of complete strangers, with great big smiles and no whining.

    Jim Bunting. Toronto.
     
  7. Carl W Schwamberger

    Carl W Schwamberger Ace

    Joined:
    Mar 17, 2007
    Messages:
    1,051
    Likes Received:
    81
    Thanks Jim. Hope folks remember this next time it gets tough.
     
  8. canadiancitizen

    canadiancitizen Member

    Joined:
    Apr 21, 2008
    Messages:
    66
    Likes Received:
    12
    Yeah , I do too, BUT most Americans are so mis-informed about Canada that I won't hold my breath.

    In my 30 year CF military career, I spent about 6 years in total, on secondments with the US Army, and most of that time I spent trying to educate the local people, on my own time, about Canada. The level of general knowledge, about their biggest trading partner and closest ally was abysmal. What little was known , was either wrong or thirty years out of date.

    Try this..........Take a look at the CNN weather map, and notice that in Canada there are NO cities, no rivers and NO provincial boundaries, either. Just a big blank space. A further point..... Not ONE American newspaper, tv network, or magazine has a "Canadian office ", or even one reporter that works in Canada, on a full time basis. Could that explain the lack of knowledge ?

    Jim Bunting. Toronto. Up here in the twilight zone ........
     
  9. urqh

    urqh Tea drinking surrender monkey

    Joined:
    Dec 23, 2002
    Messages:
    9,683
    Likes Received:
    955
    Someone mention Goose Bay? Is that the Goose Bay oft frequented by UK forces for training still to this day?

    As for the 50 destroyers, the territories would be slightly unhappy if USA got into talks regarding their soil being handed back to Britain. Although its a great idea, cheap holidays again. A bigger question on the destroyers would surely be did we in fact physically need them at the time or did Winni have other intentions with the request for them.
     
  10. canadiancitizen

    canadiancitizen Member

    Joined:
    Apr 21, 2008
    Messages:
    66
    Likes Received:
    12
    URGH:

    Goose Bay is the airfield that NATO forces use to fly into the interior of Labrador, to do low level high speed training, whch cannot be done in Europe, due to the massive restrictions placed by the EU. Wainright Alberta is the CF base used for long range artillery fire exercises, again to get past EU regulations. The British Army maintains a year round staff there to do up keep on their guns and vehicles .

    Cold Lake Alberta is the CF's fighter aircraft training school and lots of EU and or NATO flyers go there to train. The annual Red Flag North exercise is held there each winter.

    Alll of the bases in that deal are now closed and the land is returned to local control.

    The 50 old WW1 USN destroyers were clapped out and in some cases, they never went to sea at all. One that was sea worthy didn't have a very long RN career, she was renamed HMS Campbelltown, and was used in the St Navare raid. She was filled with Torpex HE and was driven into the lock gates, and later blown up, by a time delay device, killing a large number of Nazi officers who were on board, taking photos of her.

    Yes they were a gift but not a very useable gift as it turned out. On the other hand the land deal was a really good deal for the US, as it allowed them to expand their range on the east coast and in the Carribbean. Long after WW2 ended , the USN had a submarine listening post at Bimini in the Bahamas that could "hear " a really long distance across the Atlantic.

    Jim Bunting. Toronto.
     
  11. Slipdigit

    Slipdigit Good Ol' Boy Staff Member WW2|ORG Editor

    Joined:
    May 21, 2007
    Messages:
    18,045
    Likes Received:
    2,364
    Location:
    Alabama
    HUH!?!?

    You either have not read much about these ships or you are letting your zealous nationalism direct your postings again.

    You made the claim, now back it up. Name one of these destroyers that did not go to sea. With the exception of HMS Cameron (ex USS Welles DD257) which was heavily damaged in an air raid in Portsmouth, England, all saw combat action.

    BTW, it is St Nazaire, not St Navare.
     
  12. JCFalkenbergIII

    JCFalkenbergIII Expert

    Joined:
    Jan 23, 2008
    Messages:
    10,480
    Likes Received:
    426
    I would like to know too.

    Forty-three initially went to the Royal Navy and seven to the Royal Canadian Navy. In the Commonwealth navies the ships were named after towns, and were therefore known as the Town class, although they had originally belonged to three ship classes (the Caldwell, Wickes , and Clemson classes). Before the end of the war, nine others served with the RCN.
    Five of the Town class destroyers were manned by crews of the Royal Norwegian Navy, with the survivors later returned to the RN. HMS Campbeltown was crewed by Royal Netherlands Navy before her assignment to carry commandos on the St. Nazaire Raid. Nine others were transferred to the Soviet Navy.
    Six of the 50 were lost when torpedoed by U-boats and three others, including Campbeltown, were lost in other circumstances.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Destroyers_for_Bases_Agreement
     
  13. JCFalkenbergIII

    JCFalkenbergIII Expert

    Joined:
    Jan 23, 2008
    Messages:
    10,480
    Likes Received:
    426
    Caldwell-class destroyers

    Wickes-class destroyers

    Clemson-class destroyers

    Town class destroyer - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
     
  14. T. A. Gardner

    T. A. Gardner Genuine Chief

    Joined:
    Aug 5, 2003
    Messages:
    6,131
    Likes Received:
    894
    Location:
    Phoenix Arizona
    Most of the ex-US DD's in this deal that went on convoy escort duty did get heavily modified by the British (and the same classes were heavily modified by the US) in order to be really useful.


    Typical British mods were to remove half or all of the torpedo tubes, remove the forward boiler room and the first stack replacing this with a fuel tank, add a number of K guns and more depth charge stowage, and reduce or replace the main armament with British guns. These modifications were done first to give these ships sufficent range to cross the Atlantic without refueling. The second reason was to increase their ASW abilities.

    The US likewise made similar modifications to their old DD on escort duty.
     
  15. Devilsadvocate

    Devilsadvocate Ace

    Joined:
    May 6, 2008
    Messages:
    2,194
    Likes Received:
    346

    I heartily concur! That the 50 ex-USN destroyers transferred to the RN in 1940 were "clapped out", "unseaworthy" or just plain "useless" is a myth perpetrated by a few British historians who, for some reason of their own, wish to discount the contribution these ships made to the Battle of the Atlantic. It is, in fact, a falsehood.

    The reality is that, while these destroyers were obsolete, as were most of the British built destroyers on escort duty in the Atlantic, they were far from worn out, having been built at the very end of WW I. Most were launched after the end of hostilities and saw only a year or two of easy peace-time service in the USN before being placed in reserve. A few actually went directly from the builder's yard into reserve without seeing any service, these were the equivalent of newly built ships. I know of only one ship that "never went to sea" in RN service and that was one that was a constructive total loss due to bomb damage while being refitted in Britain.

    In service, they proved to be very good escorts although the British officers and crews were quick to complain about various features which did not conform to standard RN practice. These complaints were more of the "not designed here" variety than substantive problems. As M. J. Whitley says of these destroyers, "Despite these grumbles, they were a short term answer to an immediate problem and gave a good account of themselves in anti-submarine duties, a task for which they had not been designed."

    By mid 1943, the Battle of the Atlantic had turned in the Allies favor and convoy escorts were no longer in such great demand. Then, and only then, did the RN begin to assign these destroyers to secondary duties,as much because of severe manning issues as any problems with wear and tear. And in many cases the ex-USN destroyers were then transferred to Allied navies. In all, the "venerable "four-pipers" served with distinction in at least five different navies, including the IJN. I know of at least three that were not sold out of the RN until the 1950's.

    See "Destroyers of World War Two", M.J. Whitley, pages 87-90
     
  16. JCFalkenbergIII

    JCFalkenbergIII Expert

    Joined:
    Jan 23, 2008
    Messages:
    10,480
    Likes Received:
    426
    Well from the list I posted it shows the dispositions of them even after the war. Most were not scrapped until years after the war ended.
     
  17. Devilsadvocate

    Devilsadvocate Ace

    Joined:
    May 6, 2008
    Messages:
    2,194
    Likes Received:
    346

    It would appear that some of those destroyers were not sold out until after some of the bases they were traded for were closed. So who can say which country got the better "deal"?
     
  18. Slipdigit

    Slipdigit Good Ol' Boy Staff Member WW2|ORG Editor

    Joined:
    May 21, 2007
    Messages:
    18,045
    Likes Received:
    2,364
    Location:
    Alabama
    You know, that will absolutely wear a ship out, or should I say clap it out?
     
  19. urqh

    urqh Tea drinking surrender monkey

    Joined:
    Dec 23, 2002
    Messages:
    9,683
    Likes Received:
    955
    Thanks to JCFalkenberg for the listing, I have been trying to find a certain ship my father served on and was down to guessing it was one of the 50, at least you have ended that route, unfortunately it was not so can look elswhere now thanks.

    Thanks CanadianCitizen for you info too. I was aware of much of it on the 50, but the Goose Bay stuff brought me up to date, again unfortunately one of the areas I never saw in my service but always had my name down for attachments but never got there.
    As for Canada, any Canadian can be proud and has the right to big up his or her country as much as the rest of us on ww2 actions. UK has much to be grateful for where Canada is concerned as well as out other allies. My reason for posing the question on Churchills real reason for the destoryers half way thru this thread was not to demean the destroyer deal, I think it was a necessary deal that went a long way to cementing Churchills ideas on the early progress of the war. Indeed they did serve well, but my own view is that although destroyers were in short immediate supply after Norway, Fall of France and magnetic mine casualties of 39-40, it was high in Churchills mind and plans to set the USA on a course that would glue them in the short term to the idea of Britains survival, to show the rest of the world, Hitler included that we still had options rather than seperate peace or surrender and show a willingness to carry on by using this deal as a political example more so than a physical one. Churchills own pressure on FDR at the time even to the point on letting him know that if we should go under he could not rely on the Nave sailing to Canada as FDR thought would be a natural progression, as others in the new cabinet may well deal with Hitler and do A France with the Royal Navy as part of a general peace pact. This seems to have sent FDR and his advisors into a pickle, a veiled but friendly threat that the RN would not indeed sail for Canada, and led I believe to the talks between King? The Canadian premier and FDR at the same time, which the Canadian premier later informed Churchil of, who was not best pleased and apparantly blew his top that Fdr was secretly negotiating with Canadas premier on the future of the RN.
    That was the reason for my asking the question. sorry if this has caused any bother between you and other members of the forum. But then again Your Canadian and as such are a member of a small group of people that has always been able to punch above their own weight. Canada bows to no one where ww2 is concerned.
     
    macrusk likes this.
  20. Devilsadvocate

    Devilsadvocate Ace

    Joined:
    May 6, 2008
    Messages:
    2,194
    Likes Received:
    346
    Interesting theory. It's pretty obvious that Churchill was trying various gambits to maneuver the Roosevelt administration into outright belligerency against the Axis from the very start. But as for getting Roosevelt to buy into the survival of Britain as a necessity for the US, I think that was pretty much a "done deal" long before the Destroyers for Bases request was made. John Costello, a British historian, wrote in his book "The Pacific War", pages 66-67, "The President's reminder [in September, 1939] to the isolationists that 'even a neutral cannot close his mind or conscience' indicated that he was already committed to practical steps to ensure that the United States did not remain a spectator in the life-or-death struggle the democracies were now facing with the Nazi dictatorship. Britain and France were counting on a revision of the [US] neutrality laws to receive their multi-million dollars of American arms orders that as belligerents they were automatically now denied. Roosevelt had also gone much further by offering the Royal Navy clandestine assistance. King George VI, during his July [1939] visit to Washington, had been assured by the President that the US Navy would carry out a 'Neutrality Patrol' in the Western Hemisphere to give effect to the secret agreement made in the Anglo-American naval staff talks that spring that 'command of the Western and Southern Atlantic, as well as the Pacific would have to be assured by the United States'........The rate at which British merchant shipping was lost to mines and U-boats during the 'Phony War' in the autumn of 1939 helped Roosevelt persuade Congress on October 26 to soften the strict provisions of the Neutrality Act with the 'cash and carry' amendment which favored the democracies. The British and French were to go on receiving arms supplies, provided they paid for them in cash and carried them in non-American freighters." President Roosevelt was definitely "on board" as far as the survival of an independent Britain went in 1939. In fact, he proved it by pushing hard for measures favorable to Britain and France, measures which hurt his domestic political fortunes by risking the ire of the isolationists and pacifists who were then very active and influential in American politics.

    If I'm not mistaken, the Destroyers for Bases idea came about because Britain had exhausted her cash reserves, badly needed the destroyers, and had no other way to pay for them. This deal was actually the forerunner of the "Lend-Lease" program as a way of getting around the Neutrality Act "cash and carry" amendment.


    I am not aware of any such incident. In fact, it was my impression that definite contingency plans had been made for the RN to retreat to Canadian ports in the event of Britain's surrender to Germany. Canadian officials had definitely been invited to the Combined Staff talks in early 1940, and had held discussions relating to the joint defense of North America even earlier, but I'm sure Churchill was aware of that fact. I'd be obliged if you could provide some sources for these facts you are asserting; the dates of the events would also help to clarify things.
     
    skunk works likes this.

Share This Page