Application Form For Extension Of Lease Period Of Islands: Fill & Download for Free

Q. Why do the Chinese buy houses in Vietnam? Why do they go through the pain of finding a Vietnamese national to buy the house for them just to have a house in Vietnam? Do they have a hidden agenda?A. Foreigners can own houses in Vietnam since July 1, 2015 with the new Housing Law. The caveat is the duration limit of 50 years from the day of being granted the certificate for the first time. It may cost you some money to extend another 50 years.Can foreigner own house in Vietnam ?03 Apr, 2017Article 159 Law on housing in Vietnam No 65/2014/QH1 dated November 25, 2014, regulations:Subjects eligible to own Vietnam-based houses and forms of Vietnam-based house ownership of foreign organizations and individualsForeign organizations and individuals that are entitled to own houses in Vietnam include:Foreign organizations and individuals that invest in the construction of houses under projects in Vietnam in accordance with this Law and relevant laws;Foreign-invested enterprises, branches and representative offices of foreign enterprises, foreign investment funds and foreign bank branches that are operating in Vietnam (below collectively referred to as foreign organizations);Foreigners permitted to enter Vietnam.Foreign organizations and individuals are entitled to own houses in the following forms:Investment in the construction of houses under projects in Vietnam in accordance with this Law and relevant laws;Purchase, rent-purchase, receipt of donation or inheritance of commercial houses, including condominium apartments and individual houses under housing investment projects, except those located in national defense and security maintenance areas stipulated by the Government.Related writings:To own house in VietnamLawyer advises about house in VietnamLawyer advises on house in VietnamHousesing ownership by foreigners in VietnamOur website in Vietnamese: www.luatsudms.com.vnSaigon RisingHousing ownership by foreigners in Vietnam21 Oct, 2016Under the Housing Law in Vietnam 2014 takes effect on July 1, 2015 and related guidances, foreign organizations, foreign citizens are only permitted to own:Apartment: Not exceed 30% of the total number of apartments in a building. If in an area with a population equivalent to a ward-level administrative unit which has many buildings for trade, then foreign organizations, foreign individuals are only permitted to own no more than 30% of the total number of each building and no more than 30% of the total number of all buildings in such area.House: If in an area with a population equivalent to a ward-level administrative unit and has projects in investment, construction and trade houses which separate house for trade, or for lease, then foreign organizations, foreign individuals are permitted to own separate house as below:If there is only on project with the number of separate houses is less than 2,500 units then foreign organizations, foreign individuals are permitted to own no more than 10% total number of house in that project.If there is only on project with the number of separate houses equals to 2,500 units then foreign organizations, foreign individuals are permitted to own no more than 250 units in that project.If there are two or more projects with the number separate houses does not exceed 2,500 units then foreign organizations, foreign individuals are permitted to own no more than 10% total number of house in each project.However, at the moment, foreigners remain facing inconvenience in purchasing houses in Vietnam due to insufficient detailed guidances. Hopefully, the situation will soon be improved.Legal basis:Decree No 99/2015/ND-CP, dated 20 October 2015 (Article 75).Law on Housing in Vietnam No 65/2014/QH11 dated November 25, 2014.House ownership of foreigner in Vietnam19 Oct, 2016Duration of house ownership of a foreign individual is no more than 50 years from the day of being granted the certificate for the first time.Prior to expiry of the duration of ownership, foreign individual has the rights to transfer, give, donate his legally own property. Foreign individual owner can perform the above rights himself or authorise a representative to perform those on his behalf.Within three months prior to expiry of house ownship, foreign owner who wishes to extend his ownership must submit an application for extension of house ownership to the provincial people committee.Within 30 days from receiving an application for extension of house ownership, the provincial people committee will consider and respond in writing form about its acceptance for extension of house ownership for the foreign owner, but the extended period will not exceed another 50 years, from the date of expiry of the first Certificate.Based on the acceptance document of the provincial people committee, the local competent authorities will record the extension on the Certificate.Legal basis:Decree No 99/2015/NĐ-CP dated October 20, 2015 (Articles 7 and 77)New property policy lures overseas Vietnamese, foreignersUpdated: 09:36’ - 27/08/2015Living in the UK, Hoang has just bought a seaside villa in Ba Ria-Vung Tau southern province at over VND 5 billion (nearly USD 23,000), a price worth to make investment as she said.Hoang told the Vnexpress online the money for the villa, if put on savings in the UK, could earn her a net profit of 1.2 percent per year, much lower than the 8 percent yield in US dollars pledged by the real estate developer for investors in the luxury resort complex. She said she would have to pay much more to own a similar property in the UK while yields were far lower.Semi-detached houses for high-income earners, overseas Vietnamese and foreigners in Xuan Phuong complex, southern Tu Liem district (Hanoi) Photo: Tuan Anh/VNAHoang is one of many overseas Vietnamese returning home to buy property following the entry into force of the revised Housing Law and Law on Real Estate Business last month, which ease real estate ownership and business for foreigners and overseas Vietnamese.On her trip to Phu Quoc island in Tien Giang province, Thuong, an overseas Vietnamese in eastern Europe, registered to buy for a group of overseas Vietnamese seven sea view apartments in a resort on Bai Dai (long beach), one of the most beautiful beaches on the country’s largest island. Phu Quoc, as a future special economic zone with numerous incentives offered by investors, was a promising investment destination for Vietnamese overseas, she said.Not only sea villas but also apartments in big cities like Ho Chi Minh City and Hanoi are catching the eye of overseas Vietnamese investors. Trung, who has lived in the US for nearly 20 years, last month bought an apartment worth nearly VND 3 billion (over USD 136,000) in Ho Chi Minh City. Trung was pleased with his investment, saying he could either sell the apartment for an immediate profit or lease it for an annual earning of 6 percent.CBRE Vietnam reported hundreds of apartments in Ho Chi Minh City were sold to foreigners right after the Housing Law took effect in July, with Vingroup’s Vinhomes Central Park alone having 112 apartments sold to foreigners. Statistics of real estate developer Novaland showed that overseas Vietnamese made up 10 percent of the company’s total transactions in July, Vnexpress reported. Another major housing developer in Ho Chi Minh City, Phu My Hung, also reported over 100 successful transactions with foreigners and overseas Vietnamese in the last one month.Da NangTechcomreal General Director Nguyen Xuan Loc was optimistic about sale of property to foreigners and overseas Vietnamese in the near future, saying new housing policies offering overseas Vietnamese equal rights and benefits as for nationals would surely trigger demand from this group of buyers. Loc said the new rules allowing foreigners and overseas Vietnamese to buy homes in the country while requiring bank guarantee for housing sale helped build investors’ confidence about the transparency and openness of the domestic market.He also said signs of market recovery plus previous successful investment by overseas Vietnamese from the US and eastern Europe had largely encouraged overseas Vietnamese to make venture at home. Analysts said the revised laws on housing and real estate business have made Vietnam’s property market more attractive, given its reasonable prices. Under the revised Housing Law, overseas Vietnamese now can own an unlimited number of homes like nationals once they have a visa to enter the country.SaigonThe Law largely expands foreigners’ ownership right in the country, allowing them to own homes for 50 years if they have an entry visa. Foreign investors of housing construction projects in Vietnam and foreign-invested enterprises and representative offices and branches of foreign traders can also own houses in accordance with law. Under the Law, foreigners can own homes through building according to housing and relevant laws, or by way of purchase, donation or inheritance. However, foreigners are not allowed to own more than 30 percent of apartments in a building or more than 250 separate houses in a ward-level administrative unit.The Ministry of Construction has drafted regulations detailing the Housing Law toward easing administrative procedures for overseas Vietnamese and foreign home owners in Vietnam. The draft regulations, expected to be issued this year, expand the duration for foreigners to own homes in Vietnam to 100 years. Foreign home owners can request extension of their ownership for another 50 years after the 50-year duration expires. Provincial-level People’s Committees would consider licensing such extension at the request of home owners who are required to make an application accompanied by a certified copy of their home certificate.To own a home in Vietnam, an overseas Vietnamese bearing Vietnamese citizenship must have a valid Vietnamese passport, or a paper proving his Vietnamese citizenship if he holds a foreign passport. If he has Vietnamese origin, he must have a foreign passport and a certificate of his origin issued by a competent Vietnamese authority.The draft regulations also specify papers required for foreigners to prove their eligibility to own homes in Vietnam. An individual must have a valid passport bearing an entry certification mark and must not be entitled to diplomatic privileges and immunities. An institution is required to possess a valid investment registration certificate or operation license.Foreigners can only own homes under commercial housing construction projects in areas which are neither prohibited nor restricted from foreigners’ residence and travel. These areas will be determined by the Ministry of National Defense and Ministry of Public Security, the draft regulations say.Pending the issuance of these regulations, the Ministry of Construction has issued an official letter providing temporary guidance for the implementation of the two laws. Under this document, home owners, home ownership conditions, number and types of homes and areas to be owned by foreigners follow the 2014 Housing Law while procedures to grant home ownership certificates and land use rights certificates for foreigners comply with the current land law.The number of foreign home buyers remained far below market potential, Cushman & Wakefield Vietnam Director of Valuation and Research Jonathan Tizzard told a seminar on draft decrees detailing the Housing Law and the Law on Real Estate Business last month. By November last year, six years after the country allowed foreigners to buy homes in Vietnam, only 580 overseas Vietnamese and 200 foreigners owned homes in Vietnam, meaning over 80,000 foreign in Vietnam were hiring a home, Vnexpress reported.Tizzard said the legal recognition of foreigners’ right to own homes in Vietnam was welcomed by foreign investors who were eager to invest in Vietnamese property market, adding specific guidance was needed to make information transparent, Vnexpress reported.In another development, Ho Chi Minh City Real Estate Association (Horea) has proposed the Government to ease administrative procedures in verifying the origin of overseas Vietnamese home buyers.Horea proposed that an overseas Vietnamese who lost his birth certificate, civil status book, identity card or another paper to prove his origin can use information on his origin given in his current foreign passport or identity card.Horea suggested the civil court have the jurisdiction to issue rulings to legalize these cases. It also proposed the validity of the certificate of Vietnamese origin be permanent instead of five years as currently to reduce administrative procedures.- (VLLF)Tags: overseas Vietnamese , Housing Law , Law on Real Estate BusinessWhy now could be a good time to buy a property in VietnamHo Chi Minh City at night © Gerolamo Auricchio/EyeEmPhu Quoc IslandHalong BayInterContinental Danang Sun Peninsula Resort, where a four-bedroom villa is on sale for $3.28mThree-bedroom villa at Sanctuary Residences in Ho Tram, $385,000Buying guideFrom July last year any foreigner with a valid visa can buy a property in VietnamExpect to pay 10 per cent VAT when buying a property from a developerThe monsoon season in south Vietnam runs from about May to OctoberWhat you can buy for . . .$500,000 A three-bedroom condo in Ho Chi Minh City’s central business district$1m A penthouse apartment in central Ho Chi Minh City$2m A seven-bedroom beachfront villa in Da Nang, Vietnam’s third largest cityMore listings at Home | FT Property Listings

Honestly, as a Caucasian woman raised going to the Reservations in native country in New Mexico, I am sick and tired of white people answering this question. How bout we let a real First Nations person talk? Black Elk - WikiquoteGuess what folks - we stole their land, slaughtered their people and their buffalo, gave them diseases they had never even known about, destroyed them with alcohol when we weren’t outright killing them with firearms they had no initial access to, herded their children to schools far away from their families where the children had their language ripped out of them and were often raped and tortured. How would you deal with this if it happened to your people? The Canadian Government Systematically Tortured And Abused Aboriginal Children For 100 YearsBecause white people write the history books, we refuse to acknowledge that Hitler was studying how well we genocidally massacred entire populations and rewrote them out of history, and he used much of our horrific success as a model for how to get rid of the Jews, gypsies, and other outcast populations when he was writing Mein Kampf. Were American Indians the Victims of Genocide?Thanks for yet again perpetuating the white colonizer superiority myth that we whose ancestors were part of the original Holocaust have participated in since the “Founding” (Read Occupation) of this country. I’d love to hear from any First Nations folks out there who can speak to the incomprehensible assault on their land, their peoples, their language, their traditions, their animals, and their spirituality by ruthless, master race colonizers.Read up on this before you rattle on about it white folk!Yes, Native Americans Were the Victims of GenocideHistorians/History Native Americans, genocide by Roxanne Dunbar-OrtizRoxanne Dunbar-Ortiz grew up in rural Oklahoma, the daughter of a tenant farmer and part-Indian mother. She has been active in the international Indigenous movement for more than four decades and is known for her lifelong commitment to national and international social justice issues. After receiving her PhD in history at the University of California at Los Angeles, she taught in the newly established Native American Studies Program at California State University, Hayward, and helped found the Departments of Ethnic Studies and Women’s Studies. Her latest book is An Indigenous Peoples' History of the United States.Mass Grave at Wounded KneeThis paper, written under the title, “U.S. Settler-Colonialism and Genocide Policies,” was delivered at the Organization of American Historians 2015 Annual Meeting in St. Louis, MO on April 18, 2015.US policies and actions related to Indigenous peoples, though often termed “racist” or “discriminatory,” are rarely depicted as what they are: classic cases of imperialism and a particular form of colonialism—settler colonialism. As anthropologist Patrick Wolfe writes, “The question of genocide is never far from discussions of settler colonialism. Land is life—or, at least, land is necessary for life.”i The history of the United States is a history of settler colonialism.The extension of the United States from sea to shining sea was the intention and design of the country’s founders. “Free” land was the magnet that attracted European settlers. After the war for independence but preceding the writing of the US Constitution, the Continental Congress produced the Northwest Ordinance. This was the first law of the incipient republic, revealing the motive for those desiring independence. It was the blueprint for gobbling up the British-protected Indian Territory (“Ohio Country”) on the other side of the Appalachians and Alleghenies. Britain had made settlement there illegal with the Proclamation of 1763.In 1801, President Jefferson aptly described the new settler state’s intentions for horizontal and vertical continental expansion, stating: “However our present interests may restrain us within our own limits, it is impossible not to look forward to distant times, when our rapid multiplication will expand itself beyond those limits and cover the whole northern, if not the southern continent, with a people speaking the same language, governed in similar form by similar laws.” This vision of manifest destiny found form a few years later in the Monroe Doctrine, signaling the intention of annexing or dominating former Spanish colonial territories in the Americas and the Pacific, which would be put into practice during the rest of the century.The form of colonialism that the Indigenous peoples of North America have experienced was modern from the beginning: the expansion of European corporations, backed by government armies, into foreign areas, with subsequent expropriation of lands and resources. Settler colonialism requires a genocidal policy. Native nations and communities, while struggling to maintain fundamental values and collectivity, have from the beginning resisted modern colonialism using both defensive and offensive techniques, including the modern forms of armed resistance of national liberation movements and what now is called terrorism. In every instance they have fought and continue to fight for survival as peoples. The objective of US authorities was to terminate their existence as peoples—not as random individuals. This is the very definition of modern genocide.The objective of US colonialist authorities was to terminate their existence as peoples—not as random individuals. This is the very definition of modern genocide as contrasted with premodern instances of extreme violence that did not have the goal of extinction. The United States as a socioeconomic and political entity is a result of this centuries-long and ongoing colonial process. Modern Indigenous nations and communities are societies formed by their resistance to colonialism, through which they have carried their practices and histories. It is breathtaking, but no miracle, that they have survived as peoples.Settler-colonialism requires violence or the threat of violence to attain its goals, which then forms the foundation of the United States’ system. People do not hand over their land, resources, children, and futures without a fight, and that fight is met with violence. In employing the force necessary to accomplish its expansionist goals, a colonizing regime institutionalizes violence. The notion that settler-indigenous conflict is an inevitable product of cultural differences and misunderstandings, or that violence was committed equally by the colonized and the colonizer, blurs the nature of the historical processes. Euro-American colonialism, an aspect of the capitalist economic globalization, had from its beginnings a genocidal tendency.So, what constitutes genocide? My colleague on the panel, Gary Clayton Anderson, in his recent book, “Ethnic Cleansing and the Indian,” argues: “Genocide will never become a widely accepted characterization for what happened in North America, because large numbers of Indians survived and because policies of mass murder on a scale similar to events in central Europe, Cambodia, or Rwanda were never implemented.”ii There are fatal errors in this assessment.The term “genocide” was coined following the Shoah, or Holocaust, and its prohibition was enshrined in the United Nations convention presented in 1948 and adopted in 1951: the UN Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide. The convention is not retroactive but is applicable to US-Indigenous relations since 1988, when the US Senate ratified it. The genocide convention is an essential tool for historical analysis of the effects of colonialism in any era, and particularly in US history.In the convention, any one of five acts is considered genocide if “committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group”:(a) killing members of the group;(b) causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group;(c) deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part;(d) imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group;(e) forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.iiiThe followings acts are punishable:(a) Genocide;(b) Conspiracy to commit genocide;(c) Direct and public incitement to commit genocide;(d) Attempt to commit genocide;(e) Complicity in genocide.The term “genocide” is often incorrectly used, such as in Dr. Anderson’s assessment, to describe extreme examples of mass murder, the death of vast numbers of people, as, for instance in Cambodia. What took place in Cambodia was horrific, but it does not fall under the terms of the Genocide Convention, as the Convention specifically refers to a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, with individuals within that group targeted by a government or its agents because they are members of the group or by attacking the underpinnings of the group’s existence as a group being met with the intent to destroy that group in whole or in part. The Cambodian government committed crimes against humanity, but not genocide. Genocide is not an act simply worse than anything else, rather a specific kind of act. The term, “ethnic cleansing,” is a descriptive term created by humanitarian interventionists to describe what was said to be happening in the 1990s wars among the republics of Yugoslavia. It is a descriptive term, not a term of international humanitarian law.Although clearly the Holocaust was the most extreme of all genocides, the bar set by the Nazis is not the bar required to be considered genocide. The title of the Genocide convention is the “Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide,” so the law is about preventing genocide by identifying the elements of government policy, rather than only punishment after the fact. Most importantly, genocide does not have to be complete to be considered genocide.US history, as well as inherited Indigenous trauma, cannot be understood without dealing with the genocide that the United States committed against Indigenous peoples. From the colonial period through the founding of the United States and continuing in the twentieth century, this has entailed torture, terror, sexual abuse, massacres, systematic military occupations, removals of Indigenous peoples from their ancestral territories, forced removal of Native American children to military-like boarding schools, allotment, and a policy of termination.Within the logic of settler-colonialism, genocide was the inherent overall policy of the United States from its founding, but there are also specific documented policies of genocide on the part of US administrations that can be identified in at least four distinct periods: the Jacksonian era of forced removal; the California gold rush in Northern California; during the Civil War and in the post Civil War era of the so-called Indian Wars in the Southwest and the Great Plains; and the 1950s termination period; additionally, there is the overlapping period of compulsory boarding schools, 1870s to 1960s. The Carlisle boarding school, founded by US Army officer Richard Henry Pratt in 1879, became a model for others established by the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA). Pratt said in a speech in 1892, "A great general has said that the only good Indian is a dead one. In a sense, I agree with the sentiment, but only in this: that all the Indian there is in the race should be dead. Kill the Indian in him and save the man."Cases of genocide carried out as policy may be found in historical documents as well as in the oral histories of Indigenous communities. An example from 1873 is typical, with General William T. Sherman writing, “We must act with vindictive earnestness against the Sioux, even to their extermination, men, women and children . . . during an assault, the soldiers can not pause to distinguish between male and female, or even discriminate as to age.”ivThe so-called “Indian Wars” technically ended around 1880, although the Wounded Knee massacre occurred a decade later. Clearly an act with genocidal intent, it is still officially considered a “battle” in the annals of US military genealogy. Congressional Medals of Honor were bestowed on twenty of the soldiers involved. A monument was built at Fort Riley, Kansas, to honor the soldiers killed by friendly fire. A battle streamer was created to honor the event and added to other streamers that are displayed at the Pentagon, West Point, and army bases throughout the world. L. Frank Baum, a Dakota Territory settler later famous for writing The Wonderful Wizard of Oz, edited the Aberdeen Saturday Pioneer at the time.Five days after the sickening event at Wounded Knee, on January 3, 1891, he wrote, “The Pioneer has before declared that our only safety depends upon the total extermination of the Indians. Having wronged them for centuries we had better, in order to protect our civilization, follow it up by one or more wrong and wipe these untamed and untamable creatures from the face of the earth.”Whether 1880 or 1890, most of the collective land base that Native Nations secured through hard fought for treaties made with the United States was lost after that date.After the end of the Indian Wars, came allotment, another policy of genocide of Native nations as nations, as peoples, the dissolution of the group. Taking the Sioux Nation as an example, even before the Dawes Allotment Act of 1884 was implemented, and with the Black Hills already illegally confiscated by the federal government, a government commission arrived in Sioux territory from Washington, DC, in 1888 with a proposal to reduce the Sioux Nation to six small reservations, a scheme that would leave nine million acres open for Euro-American settlement. The commission found it impossible to obtain signatures of the required three-fourths of the nation as required under the 1868 treaty, and so returned to Washington with a recommendation that the government ignore the treaty and take the land without Sioux consent. The only means to accomplish that goal was legislation, Congress having relieved the government of the obligation to negotiate a treaty. Congress commissioned General George Crook to head a delegation to try again, this time with an offer of $1.50 per acre. In a series of manipulations and dealings with leaders whose people were now starving, the commission garnered the needed signatures. The great Sioux Nation was broken into small islands soon surrounded on all sides by European immigrants, with much of the reservation land a checkerboard with settlers on allotments or leased land.vCreating these isolated reservations broke the historical relationships between clans and communities of the Sioux Nation and opened areas where Europeans settled. It also allowed the Bureau of Indian Affairs to exercise tighter control, buttressed by the bureau’s boarding school system. The Sun Dance, the annual ceremony that had brought Sioux together and reinforced national unity, was outlawed, along with other religious ceremonies. Despite the Sioux people’s weak position under late-nineteenth-century colonial domination, they managed to begin building a modest cattle-ranching business to replace their former bison-hunting economy. In 1903, the US Supreme Court ruled, in Lone Wolf v. Hitchcock, that a March 3, 1871, appropriations rider was constitutional and that Congress had “plenary” power to manage Indian property. The Office of Indian Affairs could thus dispose of Indian lands and resources regardless of the terms of previous treaty provisions. Legislation followed that opened the reservations to settlement through leasing and even sale of allotments taken out of trust. Nearly all prime grazing lands came to be occupied by non-Indian ranchers by the 1920s.By the time of the New Deal–Collier era and nullification of Indian land allotment under the Indian Reorganization Act, non-Indians outnumbered Indians on the Sioux reservations three to one. However, “tribal governments” imposed in the wake of the Indian Reorganization Act proved particularly harmful and divisive for the Sioux.”vi Concerning this measure, the late Mathew King, elder traditional historian of the Oglala Sioux (Pine Ridge), observed: “The Bureau of Indian Affairs drew up the constitution and by-laws of this organization with the Indian Reorganization Act of 1934. This was the introduction of home rule. . . . The traditional people still hang on to their Treaty, for we are a sovereign nation. We have our own government.”vii “Home rule,” or neocolonialism, proved a short-lived policy, however, for in the early 1950s the United States developed its termination policy, with legislation ordering gradual eradication of every reservation and even the tribal governments.viii At the time of termination and relocation, per capita annual income on the Sioux reservations stood at $355, while that in nearby South Dakota towns was $2,500. Despite these circumstances, in pursuing its termination policy, the Bureau of Indian Affairs advocated the reduction of services and introduced its program to relocate Indians to urban industrial centers, with a high percentage of Sioux moving to San Francisco and Denver in search of jobs.ixThe situations of other Indigenous Nations were similar.Pawnee Attorney Walter R. Echo-Hawk writes:In 1881, Indian landholdings in the United States had plummeted to 156 million acres. By 1934, only about 50 million acres remained (an area the size of Idaho and Washington) as a result of the General Allotment Act of 1887. During World War II, the government took 500,000 more acres for military use. Over one hundred tribes, bands, and Rancherias relinquished their lands under various acts of Congress during the termination era of the 1950s. By 1955, the indigenous land base had shrunk to just 2.3 percent of its [size at the end of the Indian wars].xAccording to the current consensus among historians, the wholesale transfer of land from Indigenous to Euro-American hands that occurred in the Americas after 1492 is due less to British and US American invasion, warfare, refugee conditions, and genocidal policies in North America than to the bacteria that the invaders unwittingly brought with them. Historian Colin Calloway is among the proponents of this theory writing, “Epidemic diseases would have caused massive depopulation in the Americas whether brought by European invaders or brought home by Native American traders.”xiSuch an absolutist assertion renders any other fate for the Indigenous peoples improbable. This is what anthropologist Michael Wilcox has dubbed “the terminal narrative.” Professor Calloway is a careful and widely respected historian of Indigenous North America, but his conclusion articulates a default assumption. The thinking behind the assumption is both ahistorical and illogical in that Europe itself lost a third to one-half of its population to infectious disease during medieval pandemics. The principle reason the consensus view is wrong and ahistorical is that it erases the effects of settler colonialism with its antecedents in the Spanish “Reconquest” and the English conquest of Scotland, Ireland, and Wales. By the time Spain, Portugal, and Britain arrived to colonize the Americas, their methods of eradicating peoples or forcing them into dependency and servitude were ingrained, streamlined, and effective.Whatever disagreement may exist about the size of precolonial Indigenous populations, no one doubts that a rapid demographic decline occurred in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, its timing from region to region depending on when conquest and colonization began. Nearly all the population areas of the Americas were reduced by 90 percent following the onset of colonizing projects, decreasing the targeted Indigenous populations of the Americas from a one hundred million to ten million. Commonly referred to as the most extreme demographic disaster—framed as natural—in human history, it was rarely called genocide until the rise of Indigenous movements in the mid-twentieth century forged new questions.US scholar Benjamin Keen acknowledges that historians “accept uncritically a fatalistic ‘epidemic plus lack of acquired immunity’ explanation for the shrinkage of Indian populations, without sufficient attention to the socioeconomic factors . . . which predisposed the natives to succumb to even slight infections.”xiiOther scholars agree. Geographer William M. Denevan, while not ignoring the existence of widespread epidemic diseases, has emphasized the role of warfare, which reinforced the lethal impact of disease. There were military engagements directly between European and Indigenous nations, but many more saw European powers pitting one Indigenous nation against another or factions within nations, with European allies aiding one or both sides, as was the case in the colonization of the peoples of Ireland, Africa and Asia, and was also a factor in the Holocaust. Other killers cited by Denevan are overwork in mines, frequent outright butchery, malnutrition and starvation resulting from the breakdown of Indigenous trade networks, subsistence food production and loss of land, loss of will to live or reproduce (and thus suicide, abortion, and infanticide), and deportation and enslavement.xiii Anthropologist Henry Dobyns has pointed to the interruption of Indigenous peoples’ trade networks. When colonizing powers seized Indigenous trade routes, the ensuing acute shortages, including food products, weakened populations and forced them into dependency on the colonizers, with European manufactured goods replacing Indigenous ones. Dobyns has estimated that all Indigenous groups suffered serious food shortages one year in four. In these circumstances, the introduction and promotion of alcohol proved addictive and deadly, adding to the breakdown of social order and responsibility.xiv These realities render the myth of “lack of immunity,” including to alcohol, pernicious.Historian Woodrow Wilson Borah focused on the broader arena of European colonization, which also brought severely reduced populations in the Pacific Islands, Australia, Western Central America, and West Africa.xv Sherburne Cook—associated with Borah in the revisionist Berkeley School, as it was called—studied the attempted destruction of the California Indians. Cook estimated 2,245 deaths among peoples in Northern California—the Wintu, Maidu, Miwak, Omo, Wappo, and Yokuts nations—in late eighteenth-century armed conflicts with the Spanish while some 5,000 died from disease and another 4,000 were relocated to missions. Among the same people in the second half of the nineteenth century, US armed forces killed 4,000, and disease killed another 6,000. Between 1852 and 1867, US citizens kidnapped 4,000 Indian children from these groups in California. Disruption of Indigenous social structures under these conditions and dire economic necessity forced many of the women into prostitution in goldfield camps, further wrecking what vestiges of family life remained in these matriarchal societies.Historians and others who deny genocide emphasize population attrition by disease, weakening Indigenous peoples ability to resist. In doing so they refuse to accept that the colonization of America was genocidal by plan, not simply the tragic fate of populations lacking immunity to disease. If disease could have done the job, it is not clear why the United States found it necessary to carry out unrelenting wars against Indigenous communities in order to gain every inch of land they took from them—along with the prior period of British colonization, nearly three hundred years of eliminationist warfare.In the case of the Jewish Holocaust, no one denies that more Jews died of starvation, overwork, and disease under Nazi incarceration than died in gas ovens or murdered by other means, yet the acts of creating and maintaining the conditions that led to those deaths clearly constitute genocide. And no one recites the terminal narrative associated with Native Americans, or Armenians, or Bosnian.Not all of the acts iterated in the genocide convention are required to exist to constitute genocide; any one of them suffices. In cases of United States genocidal policies and actions, each of the five requirements can be seen.First, Killing members of the group: The genocide convention does not specify that large numbers of people must be killed in order to constitute genocide, rather that members of the group are killed because they are members of the group. Assessing a situation in terms of preventing genocide, this kind of killing is a marker for intervention.Second, Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group: such as starvation, the control of food supply and withholding food as punishment or as reward for compliance, for instance, in signing confiscatory treaties. As military historian John Grenier points out in his First Way of War:For the first 200 years of our military heritage, then, Americans depended on arts of war that contemporary professional soldiers supposedly abhorred: razing and destroying enemy villages and fields; killing enemy women and children; raiding settlements for captives; intimidating and brutalizing enemy noncombatants; and assassinating enemy leaders. . . . In the frontier wars between 1607 and 1814, Americans forged two elements—unlimited war and irregular war—into their first way of war.xviiGrenier argues that not only did this way of war continue throughout the 19th century in wars against the Indigenous nations, but continued in the 20th century and currently in counterinsurgent wars against peoples in Latin America, the Caribbean and Pacific, Southeast Asia, Middle and Western Asia and Africa.Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part: Forced removal of all the Indigenous nations east of the Mississippi to Indian Territory during the Jackson administration was a calculated policy intent on destroying those peoples ties to their original lands, as well as declaring Native people who did not remove to no longer be Muskogee, Sauk, Kickapoo, Choctaw, destroying the existence of up to half of each nation removed. Mandatory boarding schools, Allotment and Termination—all official government policies--also fall under this category of the crime of genocide. The forced removal and four year incarceration of the Navajo people resulted in the death of half their population.Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group: Famously, during the Termination Era, the US government administrated Indian Health Service made the top medical priority the sterilization of Indigenous women. In 1974, an independent study by one the few Native American physicians, Dr. Connie Pinkerton-Uri, Choctaw/Cherokee, found that one in four Native women had been sterilized without her consent. Pnkerton-Uri’s research indicated that the Indian Health Service had “singled out full-blooded Indian women for sterilization procedures.” At first denied by the Indian Health Service, two years later, a study by the U.S. General Accounting Office found that 4 of the 12 Indian Health Service regions sterilized 3,406 Native women without their permission between 1973 and 1976. The GAO found that 36 women under age 21 had been forcibly sterilized during this period despite a court-ordered moratorium on sterilizations of women younger than 21.Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group: Various governmental entities, mostly municipalities, counties, and states, routinely removed Native children from their families and put them up for adoption. In the Native resistance movements of the 1960s and 1970s, the demand to put a stop to the practice was codified in the Indian Child Welfare Act of 1978. However, the burden of enforcing the legislation lay with Tribal Government, but the legislation provided no financial resources for Native governments to establish infrastructure to retrieve children from the adoption industry, in which Indian babies were high in demand. Despite these barriers to enforcement, the worst abuses had been curbed over the following three decades. But, on June 25, 2013, the U.S. Supreme Court, in a 5-4 ruling drafted by Justice Samuel Alito, used provisions of the Indian Child Welfare Act (ICWA) to say that a child, widely known as Baby Veronica, did not have to live with her biological Cherokee father. The high court’s decision paved the way for Matt and Melanie Capobianco, the adoptive parents, to ask the South Carolina Courts to have the child returned to them. The court gutted the purpose and intent of the Indian Child Welfare Act, missing the concept behind the ICWA, the protection of cultural resource and treasure that are Native children; it’s not about protecting so-called traditional or nuclear families. It’s about recognizing the prevalence of extended families and culture.xviiiSo, why does the Genocide Convention matter? Native nations are still here and still vulnerable to genocidal policy. This isn’t just history that predates the 1948 Genocide Convention. But, the history is important and needs to be widely aired, included in public school texts and public service announcements. The Doctrine of Discovery is still law of the land. From the mid-fifteenth century to the mid-twentieth century, most of the non-European world was colonized under the Doctrine of Discovery, one of the first principles of international law Christian European monarchies promulgated to legitimize investigating, mapping, and claiming lands belonging to peoples outside Europe. It originated in a papal bull issued in 1455 that permitted the Portuguese monarchy to seize West Africa. Following Columbus’s infamous exploratory voyage in 1492, sponsored by the king and queen of the infant Spanish state, another papal bull extended similar permission to Spain. Disputes between the Portuguese and Spanish monarchies led to the papal-initiated Treaty of Tordesillas (1494), which, besides dividing the globe equally between the two Iberian empires, clarified that only non-Christian lands fell under the discovery doctrine.xixThis doctrine on which all European states relied thus originated with the arbitrary and unilateral establishment of the Iberian monarchies’ exclusive rights under Christian canon law to colonize foreign peoples, and this right was later seized by other European monarchical colonizing projects. The French Republic used this legalistic instrument for its nineteenth- and twentieth-century settler colonialist projects, as did the newly independent United States when it continued the colonization of North America begun by the British.In 1792, not long after the US founding, Secretary of State Thomas Jefferson claimed that the Doctrine of Discovery developed by European states was international law applicable to the new US government as well. In 1823 the US Supreme Court issued its decision inJohnson v. McIntosh. Writing for the majority, Chief Justice John Marshall held that the Doctrine of Discovery had been an established principle of European law and of English law in effect in Britain’s North American colonies and was also the law of the United States. The Court defined the exclusive property rights that a European country acquired by dint of discovery: “Discovery gave title to the government, by whose subjects, or by whose authority, it was made, against all other European governments, which title might be consummated by possession.” Therefore, European and Euro-American “discoverers” had gained real-property rights in the lands of Indigenous peoples by merely planting a flag. Indigenous rights were, in the Court’s words, “in no instance, entirely disregarded; but were necessarily, to a considerable extent, impaired.” The court further held that Indigenous “rights to complete sovereignty, as independent nations, were necessarily diminished.” Indigenous people could continue to live on the land, but title resided with the discovering power, the United States. The decision concluded that Native nations were “domestic, dependent nations.”The Doctrine of Discovery is so taken for granted that it is rarely mentioned in historical or legal texts published in the Americas. The UN Permanent Forum on Indigenous Peoples, which meets annually for two weeks, devoted its entire 2012 session to the doctrine.xx But few US citizens are aware of the precarity of the situation of Indigenous Peoples in the United States._______________i Patrick Wolfe, “Settler Colonialism and the Elimination of the Native,” Journal of Genocide Research 8, vol. 4 (December 2006), 387.ii Gary Clayton Anderson, Ethnic Cleansing and the Indian: The Crime that Should Haunt America. (Norman: University of Oklahoma Press, 2014.), 4.iii “Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, Paris, 9 December 1948,” Audiovisual Library of International Law, http://untreaty.un.org/cod/avl/ha/cppcg/cppcg.html (accessed December 6, 2012). See also Josef L. Kunz, “The United Nations Convention on Genocide,” American Journal of International Law 43, no. 4 (October 1949) 738–46.iv April 17, 1873, quoted in John F. Marszalek, Sherman: A Soldier’s Passion for Order(New York: Free Press, 1992), 379.v See Testimony of Pat McLaughlin, Chairman of the Standing Rock Sioux government, Fort Yates, North Dakota (May 8, 1976), at hearings of the American Indian Policy Review Commission, established by Congress in the Act of January 3, 1975.vi See: Kenneth R. Philp, John Collier’s Crusade for Indian Reform, 1920-1954.vii King quoted in Roxanne Dunbar-Ortiz, The Great Sioux Nation: Sitting in Judgment on America (Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press, 2013), 156.viii For a lucid discussion of neocolonialism in relation to American Indians and the reservation system, see Joseph Jorgensen, The Sun Dance Religion: Power for the Powerless (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1977), 89–146.ix There is continuous migration from reservations to cities and border towns and back to the reservations, so that half the Indian population at any time is away from the reservation. Generally, however, relocation is not permanent and resembles migratory labor more than permanent relocation. This conclusion is based on my personal observations and on unpublished studies of the Indigenous populations in the San Francisco Bay Area and Los Angeles.x Walter R. Echo-Hawk, In the Courts of the Conqueror (Golden, CO: Fulcrum, 2010), 77–78.xi Colin G. Calloway, review of Julian Granberry, The Americas That Might Have Been: Native American Social Systems through Time (Tuscaloosa: University of Alabama Press, 2005), Ethnohistory 54, no. 1 (Winter 2007), 196.xii Benjamin Keen, “The White Legend Revisited,” Hispanic American Historical Review 51 (1971): 353.xiii Denevan, “The Pristine Myth,” 4–5.xiv Henry F. Dobyns, Their Number Become Thinned: Native American Population Dynamics in Eastern North America (Knoxville: University of Tennessee Press in cooperation with the Newberry Library, 1983), 2. See also Dobyns, Native American Historical Demography, and Dobyns, “Estimating Aboriginal American Population: An Appraisal of Techniques with a New Hemispheric Estimate,” Current Anthropology 7 (1966), 295–416, and “Reply,” 440–44.xv Woodrow Wilson Borah, “America as Model: The Demographic Impact of European Expansion upon the Non-European World,” in Actas y Morías XXXV Congreso Internacional de Americanistas, México 1962,3 vols. (Mexico City: Editorial Libros de México, 1964), 381.xvii John Grenier, The First Way of War: American War Making on the Frontier, 1607–1814 (New York: Cambridge University Press, 2005), 5, 10.xviii http://indiancountrytodaymedianetwork.com/2013/06/25/supreme-court-thwarts-icwa-intent-baby-veronica-case-150103xix Robert J. Miller, “The International Law of Colonialism: A Comparative Analysis,” in “Symposium of International Law in Indigenous Affairs: The Doctrine of Discovery, the United Nations, and the Organization of Americans States,” special issue, Lewis and Clark Law Review 15, no. 4 (Winter 2011), 847–922. See also Vine Deloria Jr., Of Utmost Good Faith (San Francisco: Straight Arrow Books, 1971), 6–39; Steven T. Newcomb, Pagans in the Promised Land: Decoding the Doctrine of Christian Discovery (Golden, CO: Fulcrum, 2008).xx Eleventh Session, United Nations Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues, http://social.un.org/index/IndigenousPeoples/UNPFIISessions/Eleventh.aspx (accessed October 3, 2013).

Britain had purchased US small arms in the summer of 1940, but needed an alternative to cash transactions. The Roosevelt administration came up with the straight trade concept, and in September 1940, Roosevelt signed the Destroyers-for-bases Agreement.This gave 50 US naval destroyers - generally referred to as the 1,200-ton type - to Britain in exchange for the use of naval and air bases in eight British possessions: on the Avalon Peninsula, the coast of Newfoundland and on the Great Bay of Bermuda.During negotiations, US access to bases was extended to include several locations in the Caribbean. A letter from the US Secretary of State to the British Ambassador, dated 2 September 1940, stated:'His Majesty's Government will make available to the United States… 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 50 miles of Georgetown...'The agreement had been negotiated in correspondence between the US Secretary of State, Cordell Hull, and the British Ambassador in America. The lease was guaranteed for the duration of 99 years 'free from all rent and charges other than such compensation to be mutually agreed on to be paid by the United States'.Britain had fended off the threat of German invasion in the Battle of Britain and America appreciated that the country was willing and able to fight alone - but Churchill understood that an alliance with the US was essential if Britain was to continue the war effort.BBC - WW2 People's War - TimelineWWIITrade of 50 American Destroyers for British Bases in World War IIDuring World War II, the controversial destroyers-for-bases deal helped save the British from Nazi domination.by William H. LangenbergIn early September 1940, the world was in turmoil. The battle of Britain was nearing its climax, and elsewhere global tensions ran high. Election year strife was just beginning to augment the furor of clashes between isolationists and interventionists in the United States.The many plots to assassinate the madman responsible for the death of millions... Get your copy of Warfare History Network’s FREE Special Report, Killing Adolf HitlerThis world stage provided a fitting backdrop for the transmission of the following message to Congress by President Franklin D. Roosevelt on September 3: “I transmit herewith for the information of the Congress notes exchanged between the British Ambassador at Washington and the Secretary of State on September 2, 1940, under which this Government has acquired the right to lease naval and air bases in Newfoundland, and in the islands of Bermuda, the Bahamas, Jamaica, St. Lucia, Trinidad, and Antigua, and in British Guiana; also a copy of an opinion of the Attorney General dated August 27, 1940, regarding my authority to consummate this arrangement.“The right to bases in Newfoundland and Bermuda are gifts—generously given and gladly received. The other bases mentioned have been acquired in exchange for fifty of our old destroyers.”President Roosevelt’s Message Stirs Up ControversyThis unilateral action by the president created a heated controversy. Its legality and neutrality were openly questioned, and the sub rosa nature of the associated negotiations was severely criticized. However, as dramatic events in Europe and activities of a national election began to dominate newspaper space, the controversy gradually subsided.President Roosevelt’s trade of 50 American destroyers for British air and naval bases has frequently been described in academic articles, popular periodicals, and books. Often the complex, secret negotiations leading to the exchange have been the principal focus of attention. The consummation of the trade via presidential executive agreement rather than congressional action remains controversial to this day. And the transfer of war materiel to a belligerent nation by a neutral country is still categorized by critics as an act of war.From the time of the defeat of Poland in 1939 until April of the following year, the European conflict was in a state of relative inactivity. On April 9, 1940, however, this temporary stalemate ended. Germany launched a blitzkrieg attack on Norway and Denmark that astounded the world with its startling success. One month later, on May 10, the invasions of Belgium, Holland, Luxembourg, and France began. On the day the Germans marched into the Low Countries, Neville Chamberlain resigned as Great Britain’s prime minister. He was succeeded by Winston Churchill, who immediately formed a new coalition cabinet and prepared to lead his nation through its gravest crisis.Dutch Army Surrenders, Nazis Advance WestwardMeanwhile, the Nazi offensive made rapid advances. On May 14, the Dutch Army surrendered, and the German assault turned westward toward the classic battlefields of northern France. Armored columns broke through north of the Somme River to the English Channel. From there they proceeded northeastward to the Channel ports—within sight of Britain itself.In just 11 days the Germans had accomplished what they had failed to do in four years of bitter fighting during World War I. This was a brilliantly executed military campaign, creating panic and demoralization among Allied forces. On May 28, King Leopold of Belgium surrendered. The French commander in chief, General Maxime Weygand, attempted to form a line of defense at the Somme, but this tactic was unsuccessful.On June 4, the British Expeditionary Force (BEF) was evacuated from Dunkirk, and the Germans then turned south toward Paris. The French armed forces could not stem the Nazi onslaught. Paris fell on June 14, and three days later the French government sued for an armistice. Britain now stood alone in opposition to the Nazi enemy.Given this historical background, how important were the 50 American destroyers to the British cause? The ships involved in the exchange were all Clemson-class destroyers built circa 1917-1922. Both the U.S. and the British Royal navies had begun preparations for their transfer in mid-August 1940. The destroyers were rehabilitated, provisioned, and sent to the transfer port at Halifax, Nova Scotia. Royal Navy crews to man the ships sailed for that port from England.Exemplifying the alacrity of these proceedings, the first six ships to be transferred sailed for England manned by British crews on September 6, only three days after President Roosevelt announced the trade, and 40 of the 50 vessels arrived there before the end of 1940.The transfer of the American destroyers came at a propitious time for Britain. Royal Navy destroyer losses had been severe during the Norwegian campaign and the subsequent evacuation of the BEF from Dunkirk, with scant chance of their replacements joining the Royal Navy until mid-1941. Even more serious, the Battle of Britain raged in full swing during September 1940, with the outcome still undecided.Looming Threats for the BritishPerhaps most ominous for Britain was the ongoing threat posed by the U-boat menace to Britain’s lifeline of transatlantic shipping. The possibility of an all-out German cross-channel invasion was also very real. These looming threats required constant destroyer patrols in the English Channel.The 50 U.S. destroyers transferred to Britain were commissioned as Town-class destroyers in the Royal Navy. Forty-four were manned by Royal Navy crews, while six were crewed by the Royal Canadian Navy. All Royal Navy vessels initially steamed to Britain, where they were refitted to rectify defects, standardized with British equipment, and fitted with Royal Navy antisubmarine detection and weapons systems. This process required several months, thus the majority of Town-class ships did not become operational until early 1941. After refit, the Royal Navy destroyers were assigned to East coast escort duties, participation in the northern mine barrage, and North Atlantic convoy operations. Ships assigned to the Royal Canadian Navy principally engaged in convoy escort activities in the western Atlantic.Most of the destroyers remained on frontline service until late 1943, when they were gradually replaced by more modern warships. As a group, the Town-class destroyers performed yeoman, sometimes spectacular, service. For example, between 1941 and 1943 Town-class ships participated in the sinking of 10 German U-boats and one Italian submarine while on patrol or as convoy escorts. One also unfortunately sank a Polish-manned Allied submarine that had wandered out of her assigned patrol area.At least two specific actions by Town-class ships are worthy of special note. HMS Broadway, while serving on mid-Atlantic convoy-escort duties during May 1941, participated in one of the most important events of the war. On May 9, Broadway and other escorts of convoy OB318 depth-charged the German submarine U-110 to the surface, where the boat was abandoned by her crew.Royal Navy Strips U-110 of Its Top-Secret DeviceRoyal Navy personnel boarded the crippled U-110, temporarily stemmed flooding that endangered its staying afloat, and removed intact the submarine’s top-secret Enigma machine, which was used to decipher coded messages. U-110 later sank while under tow toward Iceland, and the captured German crewmen were unaware that their boat had been boarded and stripped of its secret device.Thus, the German High Command had no knowledge of this event, which aided efforts to decipher the Enigma code and led to the gathering of vital intelligence known to the Allies as Ultra. HMS Broadwayreceived serious hull damage from one of U-110’s hydroplanes during this action, requiring two months of repairs in Britain. Thereafter, she continued convoy escort duties in the Atlantic with no further successes against submarines for nearly two years. On May 14, 1943, however, Broadway again achieved notoriety when she attacked and sank U-89. The destroyer remained active throughout the war.The most highly publicized and dramatic action by a Town-class destroyer was the destruction of the Normandie Lock at the French port of St. Nazaire on March 29, 1942, via a nearly suicidal mission led by HMS Campbeltown. The former USS Buchanan, Campbeltown was refitted in England, then served as a convoy escort until being declared expendable in January 1942. She was prepared at the Devonport dockyard for the St. Nazaire raid. Modified to resemble a German torpedo boat, the destroyer was loaded with explosives and rammed into the Normandie Lock on March 29, 1942. Hours later, the ship blew up, rendering the lock inoperable in the process.Not all of the 50 Town-class destroyers proved to be as effective as Broadway and Campbeltown. For example, HMS Cameron was being refitted in drydock at Portsmouth during December 1940 when she was blown off her blocks by a German bombing attack. Although the ship was subsequently salvaged, she was never recommissioned and was scrapped in December 1944. HMCS Columbia suffered an even more ignominious fate. After serving mostly as an convoy escort in Canadian waters, Columbia somehow steamed into a rock cliff at Moreton Bay in Newfoundland on February 25, 1944, crushing her bow. Towed to St. John’s, she lay as a bowless hulk until scrapped in August 1945.“50 Ships That Saved the World”?While some historians have asserted that these destroyers were “50 ships that saved the world,” that seems to be unwarranted hyperbole. The Town-class vessels as a whole were not refitted and ready for combat until early 1941. By that time, the Battle of Britain had been won and the German invasion threat toward England abandoned, while Hitler devoted his army’s attention to the invasion of the Soviet Union. Nevertheless, German U-boats continued to threaten crucial supplies reaching Britain by sea, and the Town-class vessels provided great service in antisubmarine operations throughout the war.The 1940 trade of the 50 U.S. destroyers for six British naval and air bases also had lasting political effects. It set a new precedent for bold executive actions by U.S. presidents, and thus remains controversial to this day. And it pioneered the acquisition by a neutral country of property rights in a belligerent nation’s territory. In the long run, perhaps the latter two geopolitical issues should be perceived as even more important than the strategic and tactical impact of the 50 Town-class destroyers upon the outcome of World War II.Trade of 50 American Destroyers for British Bases in World War IIDestroyers For Bases Agreement, September 2, 1940“In May of 1940 the public, the editors, the officials of the United States were thrown into utmost confusion by developments in Europe. Hitler had overrun quickly most of Western Europe. He had demonstrated furious and unanticipated striking power. The other countries had demonstrated weakness that was unexpected and unaccountable. Men lost their confidence in everything from seeing the nations of Europe go down so fast before Hitler’s armies.”– The Reminiscences of Robert H. Jackson. Harlan B. Phillips ed.,1955. Columbia University, Oral History Research Office. pg. 881Winston Churchill had recently assumed the premiership of Great Britain when, on May 15, 1940, he sought assistance from the United States. Churchill’s May 15 cable to President Roosevelt described the dire situation that England was in.“The scene has darkened swiftly. The enemy have a marked preponderance in the air, and their new technique is making a deep impression upon the French. I think myself the battle on land has only just begun…The small countries are simply smashed up, one by one, like matchwood. We must expect, though it is not yet certain, that Mussolini will hurry in to share the loot of civilization. We expect to be attacked here ourselves, both from the air and by parachute and air borne troops in the near future, and are getting ready from them. If necessary, we shall continue the war alone and we are not afraid of that. But I trust you realize, Mr. President, that the voice and force of the United States may count for nothing if they are withheld too long. You may have completely subjugated, Nazified Europe established with astonishing swiftness, and the weight may be more than we can bear.”Churchill, Winston, and Warren F. Kimball. Churchill and Roosevelt – the Complete Correspondence. First ed. Vol. 1. Princeton, NJ: Princeton Univ. Pr., 1984. 37-38.Churchill asked the United States for the loan of “forty or fifty of your older destroyers,” and warned that without them Britain would be unable to fight the “Battle of the Atlantic” against Germany and Italy. The defeat of Britain would be a catastrophe for the United States, leaving it at risk for war on two fronts.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.”WINSTON CHURCHILL WEARS A STEEL HELMET DURING HIS VISIT TO DOVER AND RAMSGATE AIR RAID DAMAGED AREA, JULY 1940CREDIT: ASSOCIATED PRESS. “CHURCHILL DONS HELMET.” PHOTOGRAPH. NEW YORK: WORLD-TELEGRAM AND THE SUN NEWSPAPER PHOTOGRAPH COLLECTION C1940. FROM LIBRARY OF CONGRESS: CHURCHILL AND THE GREAT REPUBLIC. http://HTTP://WWW.LOC.GOV/ITEM/2004666450/ (ACCESSED SEPTEMBER 2, 2015).Throughout the rest of May, and into June, Churchill continued to reach out to the United States for assistance. On July 3, 1940, the British Navy bombed the French Navy at its base in northwestern Algeria. Jackson writes about this event in That Man: An Insider Portrait of Franklin D. Roosevelt, Pg 85.“The specter of overwhelming German naval power, added to her seemingly irresistible air and land forces, deeply troubled the President. If the Germans should capture the French fleet, it – with Germany’s own and that of Italy, and with probable cooperation from Japan – would leave the United States to face alone a most formidable naval and air power. But in the early days of July, Britain, defying what seemed to be forces as inexorable as fate and risking alienation of the French people, boldly attacked and largely disabled the French fleet so that it could no longer be of substantial service to Hitler. Britain won not only our admiration for her courage and audacity but our gratitude as well.”During the month of August, discussions between Britain and the United States shifted from a loan or sale of the destroyers to an exchange of the destroyers for bases on British territories in the North Atlantic and the Caribbean. 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.”ROOSEVELT HOLDS DESTROYER CONFERENCE, AUGUST 22, 1940 - LEFT TO RIGHT, ATTORNEY GENERAL ROBERT H. JACKSON, SECRETARY OF WAR HENRY STIMSON, ACTING SECRETARY OF STATE SUMNER WELLES, AND SECRETARY OF THE NAVY FRANK KNOX.CREDIT: THE ROBERT H. JACKSON CENTER, INTERNATIONAL NEWS PHOTO COLLECTIONJackson states in his Oral History that, “the opinion contained a simple, statutory interpretation, which if it hadn’t been in the context of war, would not have been even a very important one. It approved the transfer of the destroyers, because they fell in the classification of obsolescent materials, provided the naval and military authorities certified that they were not needful for the defense of the United States. The opinion refused to approve the transfer of the mosquito boats, since they fell in a different classification, and it made no discussion of international law aspects of the transaction.”The opinion resolved that:“Accordingly, you are respectfully advised:(a) That the proposed arrangement may be concluded as an executive agreement, effective without awaiting ratification.(b) That there is Presidential power to transfer title and possession of the proposed considerations upon certification by appropriate staff officers.(c) That the dispatch of the so-called “mosquito boats” would constitute a violation of the statute law of the United States, but with that exception there is no legal obstacle to the consummation of the transaction, in accordance, of course, with the applicable provisions of the Neutrality Act as to delivery.”Opinion on Exchange of Over-Age Destroyers for Naval and Air Bases, Office of the Attorney General, Washington D.C., August 27, 1940Jackson’s opinion did not deal with aspects of international law. Later, he would write about his views on international law and the right of neutral countries to extend aid to countries at war in a speech he was scheduled to make at the Inter-America Bar Association in Havana Cuba, March 27, 1941. He was prevented from giving this speech due to a violent storm. The Honorable George S. Messersmith, American Ambassador to Cuba, delivered the speech in his absence.“Present aggressive wars are civil wars against the international community. Accordingly, as responsible members of that community, we can treat victims of aggression in the same way we treat legitimate governments when there is civil strife and a state of insurgency – that is to say, we are permitted to give to defending governments all the aid we choose.”On September 2, 1940, President Roosevelt signed the Destroyers for Bases Agreement. Today, 75 years later, we remember the significant events that happened during the summer of 1940. September 2, 1945, Japan formally surrenders to the Allies, bringing an end to World War II. A few months later, on November 21, 1945, Robert H. Jackson steps to the podium in the Palace of Justice in Germany to give his powerful Opening Statement before the International Military Tribunal at Nuremberg.ROYAL NAVY AND U.S. NAVY SAILORS INSPECT DEPTH CHARGES ABOARD WICKES-CLASS DESTROYERS, IN 1940. IN THE BACKGROUND ARE USS BUCHANAN (DD-131), AND USS CROWNINSHIELD (DD-134). ON 9 SEPTEMBER 1940 BOTH WERE TRANSFERRED TO THE ROYAL NAVY. BUCHANAN BECAME HMS CAMPBELTOWN (I42), WHICH WAS EXPENDED AS A DEMOLITION SHIP DURING ST. NAZAIRE RAID ON 29 MARCH 1942. CROWNINSHIELD BECAME HMS CHELSEA (I35) WHICH WAS TRANSFERRED TO RUSSIA ON 16 JULY 1944 AND RENAMED DERZKIY. SHE WAS FINALLY RETURNED TO THE UK FOR SCRAPPING ON 23 JUNE 1949.CREDIT: UNITED STATES OFFICE OF WAR INFORMATION. OVERSEAS PICTURE DIVISION, LIBRARY OF CONGRESS.Destroyers For Bases Agreement, September 2, 1940 - Robert H Jackson CenterLend-Lease and Military Aid to the Allies in the Early Years of World War IIDuring World War II, the United States began to provide significant military supplies and other assistance to the Allies in September 1940, even though the United States did not enter the war until December 1941. Much of this aid flowed to the United Kingdom and other nations already at war with Germany and Japan through an innovative program known as Lend-Lease.FDR Signing the Lend-Lease BillWhen war broke out in Europe in September 1939, President Franklin D. Rooseveltdeclared that while the United States would remain neutral in law, he could “not ask that every American remain neutral in thought as well.” Roosevelt himself made significant efforts to help nations engaged in the struggle against Nazi Germany and wanted to extend a helping hand to those countries that lacked the supplies necessary to fight against the Germans. The United Kingdom, in particular, desperately needed help, as it was short of hard currency to pay for the military goods, food, and raw materials it needed from the United States.Though President Roosevelt wanted to provide assistance to the British, both American law and public fears that the United States would be drawn into the conflict blocked his plans. The Neutrality Act of 1939 allowed belligerents to purchase war materiel from the United States, but only on a “cash and carry” basis. The Johnson Act of 1934 also prohibited the extension of credit to countries that had not repaid U.S. loans made to them during World War I—which included Great Britain. The American military opposed the diversion of military supplies to the United Kingdom. The Army’s Chief of Staff, General George C. Marshall, anticipated that Britain would surrender following the collapse of France, and thus American supplies sent to the British would fall into German hands. Marshall and others therefore argued that U.S. national security would be better served by reserving military supplies for the defense of the Western Hemisphere. American public opinion also limited Roosevelt’s options. Many Americans opposed involving the United States in another war. Even though American public opinion generally supported the British rather than the Germans, President Roosevelt had to develop an initiative that was consistent with the legal prohibition against the granting of credit, satisfactory to military leadership, and acceptable to an American public that generally resisted involving the United States in the European conflict.British Prime Minister Winston ChurchillOn September 2, 1940, President Roosevelt signed a “Destroyers for Bases” agreement. Under the terms of the agreement, the United States gave the British more than 50 obsolete destroyers, in exchange for 99-year leases to territory in Newfoundland and the Caribbean, which would be used as U.S. air and naval bases. British Prime Minister Winston Churchill had originally requested that Roosevelt provide the destroyers as a gift, but the President knew that the American public and Congress would oppose such a deal. He therefore decided that a deal that gave the United States long-term access to British bases could be justified as essential to the security of the Western Hemisphere—thereby assuaging the concerns of the public and the U.S. militaryIn December 1940, Churchill warned Roosevelt that the British were no longer able to pay for supplies. On December 17, President Roosevelt proposed a new initiative that would be known as Lend-Lease. The United States would provide Great Britain with the supplies it needed to fight Germany, but would not insist upon being paid immediatelyInstead, the United States would “lend” the supplies to the British, deferring payment. When payment eventually did take place, the emphasis would not be on payment in dollars. The tensions and instability engendered by inter-allied war debts in the 1920s and 1930s had demonstrated that it was unreasonable to expect that virtually bankrupt European nations would be able to pay for every item they had purchased from the United States. Instead, payment would primarily take the form of a “consideration” granted by Britain to the United States. After many months of negotiation, the United States and Britain agreed, in Article VII of the Lend-Lease agreement they signed, that this consideration would primarily consist of joint action directed towards the creation of a liberalized international economic order in the postwar world.Lend-Lease MemorialThe United Kingdom was not the only nation to strike such a deal with the United States. Over the course of the war, the United States contracted Lend-Lease agreements with more than 30 countries, dispensing some $50 billion in assistance. Although British Prime Minister Winston Churchill later referred to the initiative as “the most unsordid act” one nation had ever done for another, Roosevelt’s primary motivation was not altruism or disinterested generosity. Rather, Lend-Lease was designed to serve America’s interest in defeating Nazi Germany without entering the war until the American military and public was prepared to fight. At a time when the majority of Americans opposed direct participation in the war, Lend-Lease represented a vital U.S. contribution to the fight against Nazi Germany. Moreover, the joint action called for under Article VII of the Lend-Lease agreements signed by the United States and the recipient nations laid the foundation for the creation of a new international economic order in the postwar world.Milestones: 1937-1945The Town-class destroyers were a group of destroyers transferred from the United States Navy to the Royal Navy and the Royal Canadian Navy in exchange for military bases in the Bahamas and elsewhere, as outlined in the Destroyers for Bases Agreement between Britain and United States, signed on 2 September 1940. They were known as "four-pipers" or "four-stackers" because they had four smokestacks (funnels). Later classes of destroyers typically had one or two.Some went to the Royal Canadian Navy at the outset. Others went on to the Royal Norwegian Navy, the Royal Netherlands Navy, and the Soviet Navy after serving with the Royal Navy. Although given a set of names by the Commonwealth navies that suggested they were one class they actually came from three classes of destroyer: Caldwell, Wickes, and Clemson. "Town class" refers to the Admiralty's practice of renaming these ships after towns common to the United States and the British Commonwealth.[3]Ships initially commissioned into the Royal Canadian Navy, however, followed the Canadian practice of giving destroyers the names of Canadian rivers. The rivers selected for the Town class were on the border between Canada and the United States, with the exception of the Nova Scotia river sharing the name of the United States Naval Academy location.[4]One of the Towns achieved lasting fame: HMS Campbeltown (ex-USS Buchanan). In the Commando raid Operation Chariot, Campbeltown, fitted with a large demolition charge, rammed the Normandie Lock at Saint-Nazaire, France. The charge detonated on 29 March 1942, breaching the drydock and destroying Campbeltown, thus destroying the only drydock on the Atlantic coast capable of accepting the German battleship Tirpitz. This exploit was depicted in the 1950 Trevor Howard film The Gift Horse, which starred HMS Leamington (ex-USS Twiggs) after her return from service in Russia.Contents1Characteristics2Ships by United States Navy class2.1Caldwell-class destroyers2.2Wickes-class destroyers2.3Clemson-class destroyers3Ships by World War II navy4Notes5References6External linksRoughly contemporaneous to the British V and W-class destroyers they were not much liked by their new crews. They were uncomfortable and wet, working badly in a seaway. Their hull lines were rather narrow and 'herring-gutted' which gave them a vicious roll. The officers didn't like the way they handled either, since they had been built with propellers that turned the same way (2-screw ships normally have the shafts turning in opposite directions as the direction of rotation has effects on the rudder and the whole ship when manoeuvring, especially when coming alongside), so these were as awkward to handle as single-screw ships. Their turning circle was enormous, as big as most Royal Navy battleships, making them difficult to use in a submarine hunt which demanded tight manoeuvres, compounded by unreliable "chain and cog" steering gear laid across the main deck. They also had fully enclosed bridges which caused problems with reflections in the glass at night. Despite their disadvantages they performed vital duties escorting convoys in the Atlantic at a time when the U-boats, operating from newly acquired bases on the Atlantic coast of France were becoming an increasingly serious threat to British shipping.[citation needed]However, one Royal Canadian Navy corvette captain described them as "the most dubious gift since the Trojan Horse".[5]The original armament was four 4-inch (102 mm) guns,[6]one 3-inch (76 mm) anti-aircraft gun, and twelve torpedo tubes.[7]On the Wickes class, the 4-inch gun placement was one gun in a shield on the forecastle, one on the quarterdeck and one each side on a platform between the number 2 and number 3 funnels. The Admiralty promptly removed one of the 4-inch guns and six torpedo tubes to improve stability.[8]Twenty-three of the class had further armament reductions for anti-submarine escort of trade convoys.[9]Two of the remaining 4-inch guns and three of the remaining torpedo tubes were removed to allow increased depth chargestowage and installation of Hedgehog anti-submarine mortar system.[9]USS Conner became HMS Leeds on 23 October 1940. She was scrapped on 19 January 1949.USS Conway became HMS Lewes on 23 October 1940. She outlived all of her sisters in British service and was stripped of valuable scrap and scuttled off Sydney, Australia on 25 May 1946.USS Stockton became HMS Ludlow on 23 October 1940; stripped and beached as a target for rocket firing aircraft off Fidra Island, United Kingdom.USS Aaron Ward became HMS Castleton on 9 September 1940. She was scrapped on 2 January 1948.USS Abbot became HMS Charlestown on 23 September 1940. She was scrapped on 3 December 1948.USS Buchanan became HMS Campbeltown on 9 September 1940. She was destroyed in Operation Chariot on 29 March 1942.USS Claxton became HMS Salisbury on 5 December 1940; she was employed as a special escort for specific convoys, including escorting Wasp during the supply of Spitfires to Malta. She was scrapped in the US in April 1945.USS Cowell became HMS Brighton on 23 Sep 1940; transferred to the Soviet Union as Zharki on 16 July 1944; returned to the Royal Navy on 4 March 1949. She was scrapped on 18 May 1949.USS Crowninshield became HMS Chelsea on 9 September 1940; transferred to the Soviet Union as Derzkiy on 16 July 1944; returned to the Royal Navy on 24 June 1949. She was scrapped on 27 July 1949.USS Doran became HMS St. Marys on 23 September 1940. She was scrapped in December 1945.USS Evans became HMS Mansfield on 23 October 1940; heavily involved in the critical convoy actions of March 1943 with convoy HX-229, landing survivors in the United Kingdom; sold on 24 October 1944 for scrapping.USS Fairfax became HMS Richmond on 26 November 1940; transferred to the Soviet Union as Zhivuchi on 16 June 1944; returned to the Royal Navy on 26 June 1949. She was scrapped on 29 June 1949.USS Foote became HMS Roxborough on 23 September 1940; while with convoy HX-222 Roxborough met with such heavy weather that the entire bridge structure was crushed, with eleven dead, including the Commanding Officer and 1st Lieutenant; the sole surviving executive officer managed to regain control of the ship, and under hand steering from aft, she made St. John's, Newfoundland; was transferred to the Soviet Union as Doblestnyi on 10 August 1944; returned to the Royal Navy on 7 February 1949. She was scrapped on 14 May 1949.USS Hale became HMS Caldwell on 9 September 1940. She was scrapped on 7 June 1945.USS Haraden became HMCS Columbia on 24 September 1940. She was scrapped on 7 August 1945.USS Hopewell became HMS Bath on 23 September 1940; while escorting convoy OG 71 between Liverpool and Gibraltar, Bath was torpedoed by U-204 on 19 August 1941 and sank rapidly.USS Kalk became HMCS Hamilton on 23 September 1940; lost while being towed to Boston for scrapping in 1945.USS MacKenzie became HMCS Annapolis on 29 September 1940; towed to Boston for scrapping on 22 June 1945.USS Maddox became HMS Georgetown on 23 September 1940; transferred to the Soviet Union as Zhostki in August 1944; returned to the Royal Navy on 9 September 1952. She was scrapped on 16 September 1952.USS Philip became HMS Lancaster on 23 October 1940. She was scrapped on 30 May 1947.USS Ringgold became HMS Newark on 5 December 1940; consigned for scrapping on 18 February 1947.USS Robinson became HMS Newmarket on 5 December 1940. She was scrapped on 21 September 1945.USS Sigourney became HMS Newport on 5 December 1940. She was scrapped on 18 February 1947.USS Thatcher became HMCS Niagara on 26 September 1940; on 28 August 1941 Niagara was involved in the capture of U-570, which had surrendered to an RAF Hudson the previous day. She was scrapped by the end of 1947.USS Thomas became HMS St. Albans on 23 September 1940; while with convoy SL 81, St Albans took part in the sinking of U-401 on 3 August 1941; encountered the Polish submarine Jastrzab, and in company with the minesweeper Seagull, attacked and sank it in early 1942; transferred to the Soviet Union as Dostoinyi on 16 July 1944; returned to the Royal Navy on 28 February 1949; towed for scrapping on 18 May 1949.USS Tillman became HMS Wells on 5 December 1940. She was scrapped February 1946.USS Twiggs became HMS Leamington on 23 October 1940; during the fighting around convoy SC 42 in the North Atlantic she shared in the sinking of U-207 on 11 September 1941; while covering convoy WS-17 in the UK approaches, sank U-587 on 27 March 1942; transferred to the Soviet Union as Zhguchi on 17 July 1944; returned on 15 November 1950; hired for the film The Gift Horse, the last Town-class destroyer at sea under her own power. She was scrapped on 3 December 1951.USS Wickes became HMS Montgomery on 25 October 1940; on convoy escort Montgomery rescued the survivors of Scottish Standard on 21 February 1941 and sank the Italian submarine Marcello the next day. She was scrapped on 10 April 1945.USS Williams became HMCS St. Clair on 29 September 1940. She was scrapped on 5 March 1946.USS Yarnall became HMS Lincoln on 23 October 1940; transferred to the Soviet Union as Druzhny on 26 August 1944; returned to the Royal Navy on 24 August 1952. She was scrapped on 3 September 1952.USS Abel P. Upshur became HMS Clare on 9 September 1940. She was scrapped on 18 February 1947.USS Aulick became HMS Burnham on 8 October 1940. She was scrapped on 2 December 1948.USS Bailey became HMS Reading on 26 November 1940. She was scrapped on 24 July 1945.USS Bancroft became HMCS St. Francis on 24 September 1940. She was wrecked while being towed for scrapping on 14 July 1945.USS Branch became HMS Beverley on 8 October 1940; she attacked and sank U-187 on 4 February 1942. Beverley was torpedoed by U-188 on 11 April 1943 and was sunk with the loss of all but four of the ship's company of 152.USS Edwards became HMS Buxton on 8 October 1940. She was scrapped on 21 March 1946.USS Herndon became HMS Churchill on 9 September 1940; transferred to the Soviet Union as Dyatelnyi on 30 May 1944; torpedoed and sunk by U-956 on 16 January 1945 while escorting a White Sea convoy; the last war loss of the class and the only one of the destroyers transferred to the Soviet Union to be lost.USS Hunt became HMS Broadway on 8 October 1940; while escorting convoy OB 318, Broadway took part in the attack on U-110 on 9 May 1941; abandoned by its crew, U-110 was boarded and taken in tow. Escorting convoy HX 237, Broadway located and sank U-89 in the North Atlantic on 14 May 1943; allocated for scrapping in March 1948.USS Laub became HMS Burwell on 8 October 1940; one of the ships involved in the recovery of U-570 after its surrender to an RAF aircraft; consigned for scrapping in March 1947.USS Mason became HMS Broadwater on 2 October 1940; escorting convoy SC 48 between St. John's, Newfoundland and Iceland, Broadwater was torpedoed by U-101 and sunk on 19 October 1941.USS McCalla became HMS Stanley on 23 October 1940; escorting convoy HG 76 from Gibraltar, Stanley and accompanying vessels sank U-131 on 17 December 1941 and U-434 on the following day; Stanley was sunk by U-574 on 19 December 1941 with the loss of all but 25 of her crew.USS McCook became HMCS St. Croix on 24 September 1940; escorting convoy ON 113 she attacked and sank U-90 on 27 July 1942; escorting convoy KMS-10, St Croix and HMCS Shediac sank U-87; while escorting the combined convoys ONS 18/ON 202, St Croix was twice torpedoed by U-305 and sunk on 20 September 1943; survivors were taken aboard the frigate HMS Itchen, which was sunk on 22 September with very heavy loss of life; only one of St Croix's crew of 147 survived.USS McLanahan became HMS Bradford on 8 October 1940; consigned for scrapping in August 1946.USS Meade became HMS Ramsey on 26 November 1940. She was scrapped July 1947.USS Rodgers became HMS Sherwood on 23 October 1940; stripped of usable parts, Sherwood was beached on 3 October 1943 as a target for RAF rocket-equipped Beaufighters.USS Satterlee became HMS Belmont on 8 October 1940; while escorting troop convoy NA-2 from St. John's, Newfoundland, Belmont was torpedoed by U-82 on 31 January 1942 and sank with the loss of her entire ship's company.USS Shubrick became HMS Ripley on 26 November 1940; consigned for scrapping on 10 March 1945.USS Swasey became HMS Rockingham on 26 November 1940; while returning to Aberdeen on 27 September 1944, poor navigation brought her into the defensive minefields off the east coast of the United Kingdom, and after striking a mine Rockingham was abandoned and sank with the loss of one life.USS Welborn C. Wood became HMS Chesterfield on 9 September 1940. She was scrapped on 3 December 1948.USS Welles became HMS Cameron on 9 September 1940; Cameron never reached operational service; hit and set on fire by an air raid in Portsmouth on 5 December 1940, she was considered by the U.S. Navy as the worst damaged but surviving destroyer available and was extensively studied for explosive effects and damage control; consigned for scrapping on 1 December 1944.Royal Canadian NavyAnnapolis (ex-USS MacKenzie)Buxton (ex-HMS Buxton)Columbia (ex-USS Haraden)Hamilton (ex-USS Kalk)Niagara (ex-USS Thatcher)St. Clair (ex-USS Williams)St. Croix (ex-USS McCook; lost on 20 September 1943)St. Francis (ex-USS Bancroft)(RCN: loaned from the Royal Navy)Chelsea (ex-HMS Chelsea)Georgetown (ex-HMS Georgetown)Leamington (ex-HMS Leamington)Lincoln (ex-HMS Lincoln)Mansfield (ex-HMS Mansfield)Montgomery (ex-HMS Montgomery)Richmond (ex-HMS Richmond)Salisbury (ex-HMS Salisbury)Royal NavyBath (ex-USS Hopewell; to Norway as Bath)Belmont (ex-USS Satterlee; lost on 31 January 1942)Beverley (ex-USS Branch; lost on 11 April 1943)Bradford (ex-USS McLanahan)Brighton (ex-USS Cowell; to the Soviet Union as Zarkij)Broadwater (ex-USS Mason; lost on 18 October 1941)Broadway (ex-USS Hunt)Burnham (ex-USS Aulick)Burwell (ex-USS Laub)Buxton (ex-USS Edwards; to Canada as Buxton)Caldwell (ex-USS Hale)Cameron (ex-USS Welles; lost on 5 December 1940)Campbeltown (ex-USS Buchanan; lost on 28 March 1942)Castleton (ex-USS Aaron Ward)Charlestown (ex-USS Abbot)Chelsea (ex-USS Crowninshield; to the Soviet Union as Derzki)Chesterfield (ex-USS Welborn C. Wood)Churchill (ex-USS Herndon; to the Soviet Union as Dejatelny)Clare (ex-USS Abel P. Upshur)Georgetown (ex-USS Maddox; to the Soviet Union as Zostki)Hamilton (ex-USS Kalk; to Canada as Hamilton)Lancaster (ex-USS Philip)Leamington (ex-USS Twiggs; to the Soviet Union as Zguchi) (starred in 1950 film The Gift Horse, which depicted the St. Nazaire Raid)Leeds (ex-USS Conner)Lewes (ex-USS Conway)Lincoln (ex-USS Yarnall; to the Soviet Union as Druzny)Ludlow (ex-USS Stockton)Mansfield (ex-USS Evans; to Canada as Mansfield; to Norway as Mansfield)Montgomery (ex-USS Wickes; to Canada as Montgomery)Newark (ex-USS Ringgold)Newmarket (ex-USS Robinson)Newport (ex-USS Sigourney)Ramsey (ex-USS Meade)Reading (ex-USS Bailey)Richmond (ex-USS Fairfax; to the Soviet Union as Zivuchi)Ripley (ex-USS Shubrick)Rockingham (ex-USS Swasey; lost on 27 September 1944)Roxborough (ex-USS Foote; to the Soviet Union as Doblestnyj)Salisbury (ex-USS Claxton; to Canada as Salisbury)Sherwood (ex-USS Rodgers)St. Albans (ex-USS Thomas; to Norway as St. Albans; to the Soviet Union as Dostojny)St. Mary's (ex-USS Doran)Stanley (ex-USS McCalla; lost on 19 December 1941)Wells (ex-USS Tillman)Royal Netherlands NavyCampbeltown (March to August 1941. Returned to RN service in Sept 1941 as HMS Campbeltown)Royal Norwegian NavyBath (ex-HMS Bath) (lost on 19 August 1941)Lincoln (ex-HMS Lincoln)Mansfield (ex-HMS Mansfield)Newport (ex-HMS Newport)St. Albans (ex-HMS St. Albans)Soviet NavyDejatelnyj (ex-HMS Churchill; lost on 16 January 1945)Derzkij (ex-HMS Chelsea)Doblestnyj (ex-HMS Roxborough)Dostojnyj (ex-HMS St. Albans)Druznyj (ex-HMS Lincoln)Zarkij (ex-HMS Brighton)Zguchij (ex-HMS Leamington)Zivuchij (ex-HMS Richmond)Zostkij (ex-HMS Georgetown)Town-class destroyer - Wikipedia