Talk:Destroyers-for-bases deal

Military history: British / European / North America / United States / World War II

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:
Referencing and citation: criterion not met Coverage and accuracy: criterion not met Structure: criterion met Grammar and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met

Associated task forces:
/
	British military history task force
	European military history task force
	North American military history task force
	United States military history task force
	World War II task force

Ships

A list of these vessels, their new names and fates, would be useful. Drutt (talk) 11:18, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is a list of the ships. Drutt (talk) 13:19, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I will be incorporating this information into the article over the next few days. Drutt (talk) 16:39, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You need to italicize the names of the vessels to keep the article in-line with the guidelines of WP:SHIPS. -MBK₀₀₄ 16:41, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, this is a work-in-progress. I intend to link them all to articles eventually as well. Drutt (talk) 16:44, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Bases

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]

Finally got back onto this and found some info (although still not able to find when it got closed).That-Vela-Fella (talk) 20:13, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

external Links

Unfortunatly, all 3 external Weblinks given in that section are broken. 89.15.161.13 (talk) 13:19, 10 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Violation of US neutrality

Why did the Axis not declare war on the United States after this agreement? (213.122.111.142 (talk) 10:47, 7 September 2016 (UTC))[reply]

Why should they? ÄDA - DÄP VA (talk) 17:04, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

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:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070430005310/http://history.navy.mil/faqs/faq59-24.htm to http://www.history.navy.mil/faqs/faq59-24.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:30, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:52, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Alleged neutrality

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]

NewEnglandYankee is wasting our time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.216.90.44 (talk) 12:47, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A statement such as this needs a reliable source, otherwise it is original research. Llammakey (talk) 12:03, 31 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.

The result of the move request was: page moved. TonyBallioni (talk) 17:54, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Destroyers for Bases Agreement → Destroyers-for-bases deal – Three things: "deal" is much more common in sources than "agreement"; hyphens are more common than not; and it's seldom capitalized as a proper name. See some book stats Dicklyon (talk) 06:00, 14 July 2019 (UTC) --Relisting. KSFT ^(t|c) 17:11, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Usage stats

"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]

Survey

Support as nom per stats above. 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]
Yet "deal" is what sources overwhelmingly call it. Dicklyon (talk) 02:55, 18 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]
Support: Tony's comment above took the words right out of my mouth. Joefromrandb (talk) 04:01, 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:

US Navy 081110-N-5549O-080 The U.S. national flag waves graciously from the Iwo Jima memorial during a wreath laying ceremony in honor of the 233rd Marine Corps birthday at the Marine Corps War Memorial.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 00:29, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Churchill

Churchill said the deal gave Germany grounds to declare war on the United States in 1940. 86.148.226.38 (talk) 18:12, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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.

BTW, the article you linked to as a source (http://www.ihr.org/jhr/v06/v06p125_Weber.html) doesn't mention Churchill or the destroyers for bases deal at all as far as I can see. It's about Roosevelt’s ‘Secret Map’ claims. Shimbo (talk) 18:22, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Telecine Guy (talk) 23:49, 4 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

7 months later and no feedback - I think it's safe to remove? Couruu (talk) 16:16, 8 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

yes, agree. Rjensen (talk) 16:37, 8 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]