Was watching "Jeremy Clarkson's Greatest Raid of All" on YouTube the other night, and something off-tangent came to me...
Given the provisions of the destroyer transfer to the UK...did we have to PAY the US for the destruction of the Campbelltown at St. Nazaire???
The financial loss of HMS Campbelltown...
Moderator: John W. Howard
-
- Patron
- Posts: 8459
- Joined: Thu Apr 28, 2005 2:41 pm
The financial loss of HMS Campbelltown...
"Well, my days of not taking you seriously are certainly coming to a middle." - Malcolm Reynolds
- Tom Houlihan
- Patron
- Posts: 4301
- Joined: Mon Sep 30, 2002 12:05 pm
- Location: MI, USA
- Contact:
Re: The financial loss of HMS Campbelltown...
Hey, we sold you the ship. What you did with it after you bought it is your problem!phylo_roadking wrote:..did we have to PAY the US for the destruction of the Campbelltown at St. Nazaire???
-
- Patron
- Posts: 8459
- Joined: Thu Apr 28, 2005 2:41 pm
Ah, but no you didn't! That was only ONE of the options!
After all, you ungrateful Colonials took BACK all those Catalinas and Liberators and Mitchells!!! We create a nice European war to finally industrialise yourselves out of the Depression and you took back all your toys and went home!sell, transfer title to, exchange, lease, lend, or otherwise dispose of, to any such government [whose defense the President deems vital to the defense of the United States] any defense article
"Well, my days of not taking you seriously are certainly coming to a middle." - Malcolm Reynolds
- Commissar D, the Evil
- Moderator
- Posts: 4823
- Joined: Sun Sep 29, 2002 7:22 pm
- Location: New Jersey
-
- Patron
- Posts: 8459
- Joined: Thu Apr 28, 2005 2:41 pm
Anyway - back to the original question - which wasn't a comedy one...given that we had to pay the FRENCH for damage done to St. Nazaire among other ports during the war by us!!! Silly us, we can't understand why they'd eat snails and frogs' legs, they can't understand why we'd want to bomb U-Boat pens...
The 50 four-stackers didn't actually form part of the Lend Lease agreements of 1941, and thus weren't actually covered by the Anglo-American Loan that from the end of the war until 2006 that paid for Lend Lease. They were purely part of the 1940 Destroyers for Bases Agreement...
Remember - when we transferred nine on to the USSR....eight (one lost) were later given back...and it COULD be viewed that ownership wasn't ours to give away?
The 50 four-stackers didn't actually form part of the Lend Lease agreements of 1941, and thus weren't actually covered by the Anglo-American Loan that from the end of the war until 2006 that paid for Lend Lease. They were purely part of the 1940 Destroyers for Bases Agreement...
Now, it doesn't say on WHAT terms - sell, transfer title to, exchange, lease, lend, or otherwise dispose of - so given some other strange financial occurances as mentioned - did the British subsequently OWN these 50 destroyers? Or merely act like they did LOLI 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. etc. etc.
Remember - when we transferred nine on to the USSR....eight (one lost) were later given back...and it COULD be viewed that ownership wasn't ours to give away?
"Well, my days of not taking you seriously are certainly coming to a middle." - Malcolm Reynolds
- Commissar D, the Evil
- Moderator
- Posts: 4823
- Joined: Sun Sep 29, 2002 7:22 pm
- Location: New Jersey
My recollection is that the British owned the destroyers as I believe these arrangements were made pre-lend-lease. They were traded for, amongst other things, leases on various bases, but this is not an area I have any expertise in.
Best,
David (P.S. Phylo, turning this Thread into a screamer would be exquisite revenge for your putting the brakes to my AHF thread about fuel requisition, but, we all know I'm not that sort of guy who holds a grudge..... )
Best,
David (P.S. Phylo, turning this Thread into a screamer would be exquisite revenge for your putting the brakes to my AHF thread about fuel requisition, but, we all know I'm not that sort of guy who holds a grudge..... )
Death is lighter than a Feather, Duty is heavier than a Mountain....
-
- Patron
- Posts: 8459
- Joined: Thu Apr 28, 2005 2:41 pm
The strange thing is - the suggestion for this Agreement came for the AMERICANS!!! Okay, they were manouvered into it VERY deftly by Churchill....but it wasn't a British Idea ! LMAO
After the Fall of France, he played up VERY strongly with Roosevelt the threat of what would happen to the US if Britain fell....specifically, what could happen in Britain's many and various Carribean possessions In other words - he created a climate of fear about a possible Axis occupation of some of them....so when the offer of ships was made to bolster British defences, it was to keep Britain in the war - AND keep the war away from American shores LOL...
...AND with the proviso - of course - of the parallel stream that thus the Americans get to "occupy" the area militarily first
Don't forget - in July 1940 britain could still PAY for these ships if the Americans asked...but Churchill had created a want in the American government for those bases.
After the Fall of France, he played up VERY strongly with Roosevelt the threat of what would happen to the US if Britain fell....specifically, what could happen in Britain's many and various Carribean possessions In other words - he created a climate of fear about a possible Axis occupation of some of them....so when the offer of ships was made to bolster British defences, it was to keep Britain in the war - AND keep the war away from American shores LOL...
...AND with the proviso - of course - of the parallel stream that thus the Americans get to "occupy" the area militarily first
Don't forget - in July 1940 britain could still PAY for these ships if the Americans asked...but Churchill had created a want in the American government for those bases.
"Well, my days of not taking you seriously are certainly coming to a middle." - Malcolm Reynolds
How would the Admiralty put their claim in to Lloyds exactly?
"So, what exactly happened to this vessel you wish to claim insurance on?"
"Er...well we deliberately rammed a dry dock, and then set off a large store of explosives concealed in the hull!"
"So, what exactly happened to this vessel you wish to claim insurance on?"
"Er...well we deliberately rammed a dry dock, and then set off a large store of explosives concealed in the hull!"
Hitler...there was a painter! He could paint an entire apartment in ONE afternoon! TWO coats!! Mel Brooks, The Producers
-
- Patron
- Posts: 8459
- Joined: Thu Apr 28, 2005 2:41 pm
-
- New Member
- Posts: 16
- Joined: Fri Jan 14, 2005 7:48 pm
Re: The financial loss of HMS Campbelltown...
Under the terms of Lend-Lease, the items had to be returned when the war was over if they had not been expended ("stricken" in USN parlance). Any cost was for use - and the cost was not increased or decreased by an items return. HMS Cambeltown was "expended" and thus was not required to be returned. By 1945 US production had become so great that the US was not interested in having much of anything returned. Thus, for example, a great deal sea miles were put on RN carriers as they took full loads of new, virtually unused FAA aircraft that had been laboriously stockpiled in Australia for the British Pacific Fleet, out to sea and dumped them so they could be officially classified as "expended" - the only remaining option once the USN said we don't want them and with the war over, the RN could not keep them!
Mark
Mark
-
- Patron
- Posts: 8459
- Joined: Thu Apr 28, 2005 2:41 pm
Re: The financial loss of HMS Campbelltown...
And IIRC hobbyist divers are now starting to search for them....for they weren't dumped too far out of sight of Sydney Harbour Bridge!!! Certainly they were dumped in Sydney Roads; a couple of years ago there were pics in Flypast of them being dumped, with identifiable sections of the Australian coast on both sides.
Wellllll...strictly speaking they COULD have had it back. The blast lifted the major part of the ship into the air...and back down into the dock! The Germans piled in sand and ballast around it to close off the end of the drydock...so it was still IN there at the end of the war!Under the terms of Lend-Lease, the items had to be returned when the war was over
"Well, my days of not taking you seriously are certainly coming to a middle." - Malcolm Reynolds