This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a
list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the
full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles
This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
The Bahamas is omitted under this heading and after doing some online searching, I'm unable to find the base name & island it was on during that time period. All it had been said was 'on the eastern part of the Bahamas' but no further details as to where exactly & until when it got closed.
That-Vela-Fella (
talk)
19:37, 29 July 2011 (UTC)reply
I have just modified one external link on
Destroyers for Bases Agreement. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit
this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
I have just modified 2 external links on
Destroyers for Bases Agreement. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit
this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
America was officially neutral until 7/12/1941. Any pro-British agreement in 1940 was obviously a violation of American neutrality. No citation is needed for a statement of the obvious. — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
83.216.90.44 (
talk)
12:45, 30 January 2018 (UTC)reply
As far as international law was concerned the US was neutral, and legally able to supply both the UK and Germany with goods and other items at the time.
The destroyers were obsolete and not considered suitable for current US navy use, except in an emergency, and so they did not constitute 'war materiel'. Selling or giving modern front-line ships OTOH would have been breaking US neutrality, unless the US also supplied, or offered to supply, Germany with them at the same time.
The point about the destroyers is that they were unsuitable for front-line use by the RN, and so would not be directly employed against Germany. Instead they were used to replace UK ships doing non-combat roles so allowing these UK ships to be used for other tasks that were in the front line against Germany. At around the same time the US also supplied a considerable number of
M1917 rifles to the UK, which were also obsolete, and these rifles were issued to the
Home Guard allowing the
Lee–Enfields to be used exclusively by the regular army.
BTW, at the time the US was selling the UK considerable numbers of military aircraft via
Cash and carry.
These aircraft were supplied unarmed, and armament fitted later on arrival in the UK. Hence these aircraft also did not constitute 'war materiel' either. True 'war materiel' such as tanks etc, where not supplied until after the US' entry into WW II in December 1941 when that country was no longer neutral.— Preceding
unsigned comment added by
95.144.50.167 (
talk)
08:22, 28 March 2018 (UTC)reply
Requested move 14 July 2019
The following is a closed discussion of a
requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a
move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
"destroyers-for-bases deal" is a 6-gram, since hyphens count, so we have to unpack it some to get stats from Google ngrams.
Dicklyon (
talk)
15:05, 14 July 2019 (UTC)reply
"Deal" makes it sound like something informal or under-the-table. It was not a formal treaty offered for ratification to the U.S. Senate, but it was an intergovernmental agreement which was not particularly secret.
AnonMoos (
talk)
16:21, 17 July 2019 (UTC)reply
Support: the engram searches provide compelling evidence. I'm not thrilled with "deal", but people out there seem to be using it in books. Fair enough.
Tony(talk)03:39, 24 July 2019 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a
requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this
talk page or in a
move review. No further edits should be made to this section.
A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
It's certainly possible that he did, but we need a
reliable source before we can include that information in the article. The Institute of Historical Research is not a reliable source.
Tag This article may lend undue weight to certain ideas, incidents, or controversies
Tagged: This article may lend undue weight to certain ideas, incidents, or controversies. Please help improve it by rewriting it in a balanced fashion that contextualizes different points of view.
What ideas, incidents, or controversies?
List them here, or remove the tag. We (I) cannot rewrite the page if you do not give feedback.