Better old equipment for bases agreement(s)?

[perfectgeneral]

Past similar threads: https://www.alternatehistory.com/forum/threads/wi-no-destroyers-for-bases-agreement.191458/

The destroyers for bases agreement was for Caribean bases and didn't include Burmuda, Newfoundland and Iceland. Could more, or different items have been traded? The previous thread establishes the idea that some kind of deal is good just as a gateway to further deals. Could these more northerly bases have been traded for something? Could an isolationist congress have traded something other than old destroyers and later accepted that wedge as a starting point for further arms trade outside cash and carry?

 

[Cook]

Could an isolationist congress have traded...

Congress was not involved in the destroyers for bases deal. In fact, avoiding Congress's prohibition is the reason that only obsolete ships were involved; Attorney General Robert Jackson assured Roosevelt that the War Department had the authority to transfer the ships as long as they were considered "Obsolete materials" and "no longer needful for the defence of the United States." Their transfer to Britain was authorised by executive order, not a bill passed through Congress.

And there is your obstacle to any meaningful military equipment transfer - if it was militarily useful, it would have required Congressional approval.

 

[perfectgeneral]

https://www.roberthjackson.org/article/destroyers-for-bases-agreement-september-2-1940/

What followed was three-and-a-half months of negotiations. There were significant issues to sort out. President Roosevelt’s initial response was not what Churchill hoped for. Roosevelt responded, “a step of that kind could not be taken except with the specific authorization of Congress and I am not certain that it would be wise for that suggestion to be made to the Congress at this moment.”

Jackson discussed in length the “Destroyer-Bases Exchange” in the oral history he gave to Harlan B. Phillips from Columbia University in 1952-1953. Below is a quote from pages 892-893.

“On the 13th of August, Stimson recites that he, with Knox, Sumner Welles and Henry Morgenthau, met with the President and formulated a proposed agreement — that is, outlined the essential points of an agreement. Sometime before that the President had discussed with me the legal situation as to whether he had authority to make a disposition of these destroyers without further authorization from Congress. On the 15th of August, I had advised him that we, in the Department of Justice, definitely believed that we did have authority to act without the consent of Congress.”

Most illuminating. Had Churchill or Roosevelt been briefed sooner on the constitutional law of this, the deal could have been struck earlier.


How about construction equipment? Machine tools? Raw materials? Processed materials?

Any more gears and marine engines floating about? Probably more ships, but in what condition?

Not even half the Wickes class were transferred (23 - over 30 remained). Just 19 of the 156 Clemson class built.

 

[Johnrankins]

What GB got out of it was less the destroyers themselves but the fact they no longer had to protect those islands and the men and weaponry could be used elsewhere.

 

[perfectgeneral]

Yes that was a gain, but it wasn't the best deal that could be had. More could be done to win the Battle of the Atlantic earlier and seriously shorten the war.

Since some bases were not in the initial deal and were just tacked on for no extra "charge" in exchange, clearly there was room for more. Churchill under asked or Roosevelt under offered or both. More ships was possible just by agreeing. Sooner was possible by legal clarity on what was allowable.

Given that some of the ships were beyond their useful life an excess number of ships would have been preferable. Especially if parts could be cannibalised to build others or keep those that were serviceable in repair.

Suppose that 120 destroyers had been traded for the base leases, in June 1940? Quite a POD. How would the RN change their ship orders? How would the USN? Would the Battle of the Atlantic be won in 1942 or even 1941?

 

[perfectgeneral]

It is proposed that 50 Wickes class and 150 Clemson class are disposed of by the President in a deal for base access to all British bases in the Americas. The deal came into effect on 2 June 1940. One each of the boiler rooms were stripped out and replaced by fuel tanks to give them confidence in the range for a transatlantic crossing. 200 Canadian civilian crews would be trained up by USN advisors to make the crossing. The spare steam turbines and piping were left on board in crates. Top speed is now cruising speed; fifteen knots.

A: Is that still legal?
B: What greater impact does that have on the Battle of the Atlantic?

 

[Atrophied]

There is a story where they use the bases deal to get new escort class vessels instead of clapped out destroyers wich the RN has plenty of to be honest.

 

[perfectgeneral]

There is a story where they use the bases deal to get new escort class vessels instead of clapped out destroyers which the RN has plenty of to be honest.

Well, that would be NEW build war fighting equipment/platforms. Congress has control over such sales and exports. What might be possible would be new build escort frigates from minor British shipyards using the crated steam turbines and steam gear to get around production bottlenecks. So not only 200 marginal convoy escort vessels by the end of 1940, but also 200 escort frigates completing from mid 1941.

 

[NoMommsen]

What GB got out of it was less the destroyers themselves but the fact they no longer had to protect those islands and the men and weaponry could be used elsewhere.

"Sounds" nice and also somewhat ... sensible

But in how many men and what amounts of what kind of material/weaponry this actually translated to be "freed" for use elsewhere ?

 

[perfectgeneral]

"Sounds" nice and also somewhat ... sensible

But in how many men and what amounts of what kind of material/weaponry this actually translated to be "freed" for use elsewhere ?

Yes I expect that aspect is largely face saving, rather than real military advantage. A common pool for POL and parts at bases might hide some further payment?

 

[Johnrankins]

"Sounds" nice and also somewhat ... sensible

But in how many men and what amounts of what kind of material/weaponry this actually translated to be "freed" for use elsewhere ?

Not huge but not totally insignificant and it cost GB virtually nothing. A small amount of land and that is it and since it was built using US dollars there is a bonus there as well. The ships themselves weren't the best but useful enough for them to be actually used. They were used as sub tenders, sub chasers, , minelayers, minewseepers and transports which were all needed by the RN. As such most were actually used in one capacity or another.

 

[NoMommsen]

Not huge but not totally insignificant and it cost GB virtually nothing. ....

Still a somewhat ... "cloudy" account of what this deal gave the Brits regarding the claimed saves.

 

[Johnrankins]

Still a somewhat ... "cloudy" account of what this deal gave the Brits regarding the claimed saves.

What the Brits gave up was almost insignificant itself. A small amount of land , that is it. They didn't sell the colony itself, or even the base, just land for a new base to be built. What do you want for so little? For that they got the very needed US dollars that needed to be spent in the colony to establish the base and the paychecks of US Servicemen, maintenance costs of the base , US military protection, ships, although not good destroyers can and were rebuilt as other ships. By the end of the war GB was cannibalizing its army units to have more infantry. Any men they could free up was a bonus.

 

[Decatur]

It is proposed that 50 Wickes class and 150 Clemson class are disposed of by the President...

Just one problem: there are only about 170 four-pipers left, and 100 of those are still on active duty. Congress had problems with FDR handing over ships in the reserve; they won't let him pull ships off active duty and give them to the British.

The USN ran those ships hard; about one-third were disposed of between the wars.

 

[NoMommsen]

...
What do you want for so little?
...
Any men they could free up was a bonus.

And for yet another time :
I don't ask about the destroyers they got, I ask about exactly that "bonus" to be somewhat substantialized you rendered so important earlier.

What GB got out of it was less the destroyers themselves but the fact they no longer had to protect those islands and the men and weaponry could be used elsewhere.

 

[Johnrankins]

And for yet another time :
I don't ask about the destroyers they got, I ask about exactly that "bonus" to be somewhat substantialized you rendered so important earlier.

Looking into it , the numbers are difficult to figure out as most troops in the Western Hemisphere were Commonwealth not British troops and it is a bit difficult to figure out which would not have been sent if the colonies had to guard themselves. A few thousand I would imagine but it is only a guess. The US built no less than 14 airbases , which were so important that the Brits threw several in for free. Again the Brits didn't give up much of anything to get their colonies protected by the US, for its own purposes obviously.

 

[edgeworthy]

There is a story where they use the bases deal to get new escort class vessels instead of clapped out destroyers wich the RN has plenty of to be honest.

Well, that would be NEW build war fighting equipment/platforms. Congress has control over such sales and exports. What might be possible would be new build escort frigates from minor British shipyards using the crated steam turbines and steam gear to get around production bottlenecks. So not only 200 marginal convoy escort vessels by the end of 1940, but also 200 escort frigates completing from mid 1941.

I once floated the idea that the US could have leased the Bases using Treasury Bills, which the British could then have used as collateral for loans to alleviate their shortage of exchange. (Including an option to buy the Destroyers for "scrap".)
Which could lead to a horrified US government discovering in 1945 that it actually owes Britain money.
(Under the terms of Lend-Lease this actually happened with Australia and New Zealand)

 

[Pesterfield]

They didn't sell the colony itself,

Could the U.S. have gotten a colony out of it if they'd wanted any?

 

[Johnrankins]

Could the U.S. have gotten a colony out of it if they'd wanted any?

Possibly, if it was willing to pay for it.

 

[Johnrankins]

I once floated the idea that the US could have leased the Bases using Treasury Bills, which the British could then have used as collateral for loans to alleviate their shortage of exchange. (Including an option to buy the Destroyers for "scrap".)
Which could lead to a horrified US government discovering in 1945 that it actually owes Britain money.
(Under the terms of Lend-Lease this actually happened with Australia and New Zealand)

That could work. The amount of the money owed by GB to the US and the small amount of money that the lease would be worth would still leave GB a net debtor.