50 destroyers for bases deal

Devil, my theory is based on the reading of Finest hour, in which it details Churchills anger with Canada and quotes the meeting that took place between the Canadian premier and FDR, also quoting the telegrams from the appendx to Churchills the 2nd world war, Ill find the exact volume and let you know. These are Churchills own words regarding the telegrams he received from the Canadian premier.

 

Interesting. Of course, Roosevelt had every right to confer with the Canadian PM, secretly or otherwise, Canada being an independent country in 1940 and the United States' next door neighbor. Churchill could get angry, but he really couldn't do much because he didn't hold any high cards. Britain desperately needed both the US and Canada, the only thing he could do would be to try some sort of bluff.

I was more interested in your Destroyers for Bases theory. After doing some more reading on that matter, it seems to me that in late 1940, there was absolutely no question that the Roosevelt administration was doing everything humanly possible to ensure the survival of Britain as an independent country. It appears to me that Churchill felt the RN really desperately needed those destroyers, he just had to find a way to make the deal politically possible in the US (i.e. exchange something of nearly equal value). Even then, there were those in the US who roundly criticized the deal as being unfavorable to US interests. What really rattled Roosevelt, as well as Congress and the American public, was the fall of France in June, 1940. That event caused Americans to realize that they actually might find themselves fighting both Germany and Japan some day, and resulted in massive naval and military spending bills including the "Two Ocean Act" which authorized construction of enough warships to defend both the Atlantic and the Pacific.

 

Well, at that particular time, Roosevelt was committed to doing everything he could short of war, but he also had to make sure he got himself re-elected. Wouldn't have done Britain much good for FDR to help them, and then get defeated by an isolationist in the election, would it? Once the election was over in (I guess) November 1940, his support for Britain became more overt.

 

Absolutely concur! The American electorate, in 1940 wasn't about to sign on for a war with Germany, and rightly so, as Germany had done nothing to directly threaten America's vital interests. Roosevelt's argument that Germany could, theoretically, establish military bases in Africa and South America, thereby violating the Monroe Doctrine and posing a serious threat to Democracies in the Western Hemisphere was pretty weak and didn't convince many Americans that the US should become a belligerent against Germany. Compared to what the Japanese were doing in China and Southeast Asia which directly threatened the Philippines, Germany appeared relatively benign. The British, of course, did not see it from the American perspective

Actually, Roosevelt didn't want to get involved in a war with either Japan or Germany until US war industries had a chance to ramp up production, say in the latter half of 1942, but if he had no choice, he definitely felt Germany was the greater evil.

 

Devil, you are correct in that although the fleet to Canada story is I believe an integeral part of the 50 destroyer story, it belongs in a thread of its own, so I will be opening one this evening. You misinterpet however Chruchil, he did indeed hold a card as Fdr's comments to others at the time show. However, rather than split this discussion I will open another thread.
For those however with access to paper records a good place to start and where the fleet to Canada scenario and the mischief surrounding it should be
Chruchills volume2 Finest hour, telegrams directly containing threat of fleet NOT being sent to Canada pages:
60,129,164,193,194,325-331 (numerous telegrams concerning this here) 335-336.

There are also some copies I have of the Moffat Papers and the Halold Ickes papers which have quotes from FDR and copies of messages to M. King at the time.
Chrurill-FDR complete correspondence is a publication I treasure highly and I have some references from there too which I will point out.
Finally the Mackenzie King diaries are of great interest in which he states and reports his private meetings with FDR and quotes the conversations between himself and intermediares before their meeting. One telegram quoted from Churchill which is not quoted in his own volume 2 shows Churchill in a fowl mood about their meeting which he points out he knew nothing of, and gives a veiled warning that the words would mean nothing if Britiain survives this struggle.
King gives us the place and date of this meeting in his diaries and expresses his worry and concern at Britains reaction, and his own personal worries and explanation of what he thought FDR was up to at the time. Im amazed people think everything was hunky dorey between the prospective allies at this time, I take nothing away from anyone, and God bless America without whom Britain certainly would have gone under, but this most certainly does involve the 50 destroyer deal and the certainty of the time that both FDR and Churchil although planning to work together if Britain survived, both at the time had their own interest to think of at the foremost.

Soon as Im back from work I;ll create a new thread. I'm just surprised that like everything ww2 just like Iraq or whatever war or intelligence gathering, that we seem in todays world to glean our information from the main published scources. There is always more as Im sure you are aware and almost always held in personal papers or libraries, but all accessible.
Regards

 

I think you are misunderstanding my contentions. I have not heard of Churchill's alleged threat to refuse to let the RN fleet sail to Canada if Britain was forced to surrender, so I passed no particular judgment on that episode if, as you say, it took place. It occurs to me that if it actually came to pass that Britain was forced to surrender, Churchill may not have even remained as PM, and even if he did, the RN commanders may have been disposed to make up their own minds on what course of action to take. But that, of course, can only be speculation.

My contention is that in late 1940, Britain's circumstances were such that Churchill could not afford to make requests such as the Destroyers for Bases deal unless Britain really did need whatever was requested. Such requests were not likely to be made for psychological or propaganda reasons alone, but only if the requested aid would be of substantial help.

As for Churchill's anger at the Canadian PM, I find that quite plausible, I was only pointing out that from the American perspective, it was natural for the US to confer with the Canadians on the defense of North America, a topic on which Churchill and Britain had little say. Contrary to what you seem to have assumed, I am very aware that the Anglo-American alliance was beset by divergent opinions and interests throughout the war, and it was only with great difficulty that compromises were reached. I have read in certain accounts that Roosevelt and Churchill really did not like each other and the partnership was strained by that and other factors.

But I feel I am firm ground when I say that Britain and Churchill could not act from an advantageous position in relations with the US and Canada, particularly in 1940 when Britain sorely needed to aid of both countries. Britain did not really hold any high cards during that period, so far as negotiating with the US and Canada. Threats of punitive actions to be taken after the war would probably be seen as empty gestures and would, in any case, be counterproductive.

I hope, when you open a new thread to present your arguments, that you intend to quote at length from the papers you have mentioned, as I'm sure many people will not have easy access to the documents in question. I look forward to reading your account of these events.

 

Certainly will, quote at lengh, if I sound brusque then it is indeed unintentional. But with an ID name like you have, you cannot but expect to be taken as just that when we hve not spoken before. Your own post to was quite a serious post and taken as such, until reading the last line which seemed more of a challenge than an invite. We may have gotten off on wrong foot, the nature of these places, and I may have misjudged the last line of your post last night, if so I apologise. Your own fault for using the addy you do daft Yank, errrr....the daft yank bit was British humour, FDR never got it either apparantly.
As for the papers I quote mate, they are all available on the net, Kings Diaries are copied in full in his own handwriting and were filled in daily giving us a great insight into Canadas view of the war.
But I will indeed quote with references of course.
Cheers and can my dad have his lighter back, one of your mob flinched it from him in 45, a big guy glasses, ginger hair and freckles, went by the name of Sam, do you know him?

 

I must admit that I'm a bit confused as to why you would see my last post as a challenge, I certainly didn't intend for it to be interpreted that way. I know many original documents are available on line now, but I have no way of knowing what sources you might introduce, or rely on, so I was just trying to set the expectations in advance. I am reminded of that old saying that the English and Americans are a common people divided by a common language! I sincerely apologize if I caused any offense.

As for my "handle", I believe it is an honorable title referring to someone who asks the difficult questions others might gloss over because they are inclined to believe a particular account of an event. It merely means that I want to explore all avenues to the truth even though those avenues might lead in a direction that I find distasteful or embarrassing.

From the stories I have heard of the depredations of US servicemen against their unfortunate allies during WW II, I believe your dad was lucky to come away missing only a lighter. Unfortunately, I'm afraid I can't be of much help; both my parents served in the PTO, my father as a carrier pilot and my mother as a USN/WAVE parachute rigger.

Warmest regards,
Daft Yank

 

No problem he gave up cigarettes anyway. Well sort of, they killed him in the end.
Nice to know if you have to jump out of an aeroplane your wife packed it. Now thats what I call trust.
Must go now though, got one hell of a job typing all this flaming Fleet to Canada stuff out, and now I have to provide references that some daft Yank requested too. Lifes never simple even if I am.
Regards.

 

Curious. When the above mentioned bases where closed, did the US need to get authorization from Britain since the bases should have gone back to them?

 

I wouldn't think so. The US would just move it's equipment and gear out and hand the keys back to Britain with a "Thank you very much." Of course Britain and the local government were probably notified far in advance of the intention to vacate, since often the local economy is adversely affected by military base closures.

 

I can only speak for the bases that were located in Canada, and Newfoundland.

In the case of Argentia, Newfoundland, the USN operated that base up until the 1990's, as a major supply and repair site for nuclear subs, and surface ships. When the US Government left the site, it left behind 40 years of toxic materials, and hundreds of tons of scrap metal. The Canadian Government has been trying, to no avail, to get the USA to clean up the mess that it left behind.

The same thing took place at Goose Bay, Labrador, and many of the radar sites that made up the "Distant Early Warning " radar line. The USAF had a number of Dew line radar stations in our far northern regions, that were tasked to look for USSR bombers coming over the Polar Sea to attack North America. When satellite technology made the DEW line obsolete, the USAF simply "walked away " and left us to clean it all up.

The only enduring benefit to Canada was the harbour facility built at Argentia , which is now a ferry terminal for the long route from Sydney, Nova Scotia. The airfields at Goose Bay, and Cornerbrook are also still in operation today.

My wife is originally from The Bahamas, and she asked her brother who lives in Nassau about the bases in The Bahamas, and he said that there is still a small USN underwater listening post in Bimini. All the others were closed in the few years after 1945.

The Bimini USN station was staffed by a mixed crew of USN and RCN in the 1950's, into the 70's. How do I know that ? A close personal friend of mine , who was a long time "electronics spook" with the RCN , married my wife's best friend, after meeting her in Bimini at a dance, in 1969.

Here is a list of Canadian Radio intelligence stations and bases, dating from 1939 to the present day.

Note that CF Station ALERT is the most northerly inhabited place in all of Canada. Now adays, CFS ALERT listens to world wide cell phone, internet and radio , microwave, plus ultra low fequency signals from submarines. Canada shares it's sigint with the USA, the UK, and Australia, on a ongoing basis. ALERT is considered to be a " hard ship posting " and the 60 to 70 people up there are rotated every six months.

How do I know ? Don't ask.......

Summary of Canadian Sigint Stations

Jim B.

 

I'm sorry, but I just don't buy this. The view from here is that Canada has benefited greatly from it's close defense relationship with the United States. During the almost 50 years of the Cold War Canada was able to reduce it's military and naval forces to extremely low levels knowing that it was inviolate beneath the US nuclear umbrella, not to mention US conventional forces. The policy of the US since before WW II has been that a foreign attack on Canadian soil would be treated as though it were an attack on American soil. Among other things, this allowed Canada to establish and pay for that wonderful universal health care system of which you are so proud. In effect, it was the US taxpayer who funded the defense of Canada throughout the Cold War, except for token Canadian military units. I know you will not agree with this, but it is a very common perception among Americans.

 

Canada has done quite a bit towards western defence and overseas peace forces over the lasy 30 years, as well as taking more than its fair share of the work in Afghanistan.

But Ill let C.Citizen defend that one.

I havent forgotten my 50 destroyer homework project, Devil, just bit busy last 2 days finding info round local museums and such for another members relative. Will not forget
Regards

 

Devil's Advocate:

I guess the concept of being a "middle power " not a super power, is hard for Americans to understand, isn't it ?

During the Second World War, with a total population of only 11 million people, Canada raised a a military force of one million, one hundred thousand men. Before the outbreak of that war, our total defense force was 16,000 men in all three branches of the service.

Canada had never made a practice of threatening other nations to achieve a political goal, nor have we felt it important that we manitain any overseas military bases, except in a wartime period. Compare that to the history of the USA ?

Canada has never started a war, but we have won all that we have been engaged in . We also have been involved in every U.N. peacekeeping mission that has occured since the first one in Korea in 1950. Taking part in peacekeeping actions requires a different mind set than does a war fighting experience. Being able to work with the two opposing sides, to keep them from each other's throats is a skill that we have perfected.

Jim B.

 

All that is wonderful, but it doesn't address the fact that Canada has been able to benefit greatly from not having to make the normal defense expenditures that even most "middle powers" as you call them, find necessary just to keep their neighbors honest. The Canadian government is well aware that the US will protect Canada from any bad guys who might cast covetous eyes upon Canadian territory, thus Canada does not need to spend money on a credible navy, air force, or Army. Canada is protected by both the US nuclear shield and US conventional forces. I'm not saying this is done out of altruism, it's just common sense for the US, but it's a fact nevertheless, and Canada gets to spend the money on healthcare and other social programs.

As for overseas bases, no, why should Canada spend money on that when it knows that it will have full access to UK, US, and NATO (mostly funded by the US) bases, whether in peace or war, should a need arise? Peacekeeping exercises are a different issue from maintaining military forces in proportion to the size of Canada. It's easy enough to send a company of troops to Haiti or a battalion to Beirut, but that doesn't mean Canada has spent the money to maintain an army, navy, or air force that would have been able to defend Canada all on it's own without help from the US.

 

Devils :

" Keep their neighbours honest " ? Look at a map, our only neighbour is YOU .

Our foreign policy is simple, we don't try to bully others. We do try to help others as much as we are able.

Jim B.

 

Slipdigit "


" Indian Wars " ? Please provide dates and places of them ?

Are you thinking of James Madison's War of 1812 ? Or the Fenian Raids from 1867 thur 1871 ? Or the Northwest Rebellions of 1870 and 1885, both of which were funded by the USA ?

Yes we have had our fair share of US invasions and proxy revolts over the years, but your " Indian wars " comment is news to me .

Jim B.