Why was Roosevelts Destroyers for Bases deal unconstitutional?
A. It subverted congressional authority to make treaties
B. It subverted the intent of the 1939 neutrality law
C. It committed the US to war
D. it violated judicial boundaries between the leg. Branches
- staisilLv 71 year ago
Roosevelt defied the Neutrality Act of 1939 and he did not seek congressional approval.
- KillmousekyLv 71 year ago
I don't know if it was unconstitutional, as I don't pretend to be expert on the U.S. constitution. However, it seemed to slip between the spaces in the Neutrality Acts the U.S. created between 1935 & 1939 & indicate a clear preference for one side over the other in an event which the Acts were supposed to leave the U.S. out of. It shows the degree of desperation that the U.K. Cabinet felt when the deal was made. I wonder what will really happen when the U.S. leases on those bases expires in 2039. The British Empire no longer exists, & I'm fairly sure most of the various countries will want no part of a foreign power having a military base in their territory.
- Anonymous1 year ago
Making money for the USA was never illegal even this was not illegal in the USA
Hitler was funded By the Rockefeller's in the Belief Hitler would Go to war with the Communists he took the Money and Honored the Agreement
the USA never did anything to stop him whilst the UK was Trying Appeasement
Hitler took all this as approval and of he went
America with the collusion of the vice-chairman of the U.S. War Production Board in partnership with Göring's cousin in Philadelphia when American forces were desperately short of everything and such arrangements were known about in Washington and either sanctioned or deliberately ignored?
For the government did sanction dubious transactions—both before and after Pearl Harbor. A presidential edict, issued six days after December 7, 1941, actually set up the legislation whereby licensing arrangements for trading with the enemy could officially be granted.
Often during the years after Pearl Harbor the government permitted such trading. For example, ITT was allowed to continue its relations with the Axis and Japan until 1945, even though that conglomerate was regarded as an official instrument of United States Intelligence.
No attempt was made to prevent Ford from retaining its interests for the Germans in Occupied France, nor were the Chase Bank or the Morgan Bank expressly forbidden to keep open their branches in Occupied Paris. It is indicated that the Reichsbank and Nazi Ministry of Economics made promises to certain U.S. corporate leaders that their properties would not be injured after the Führer was victorious.
Thus, the bosses of the multinationals as we know them today had a six-spot on every side of the dice cube. Whichever side won the war, the powers that really ran nations would not be adversely affected.
And it is important to consider the size of American investments in Nazi Germany at the time of Pearl Harbor. These amounted to an estimated total of $475 million. Standard Oil of New Jersey had $120 million invested there; General Motors had $35 million; ITT had $30 million; and Ford had $17.5 million. Though it would have been more patriotic to have allowed Nazi Germany to confiscate these companies for the duration—to nationalize them or to absorb them into Hermann Göring's industrial empire—it was clearly more practical to insure them protection from seizure by allowing them to remain in special holding companies, the money accumulating until war's end. It is interesting that whereas there is no evidence of any serious attempt by Roosevelt to impeach the guilty in the United States,
reason FDR was afraid of Upsetting Corporate USA whose Cooperation was desperately needed to win the War in the Pacific
- MercuryLv 71 year ago
Most of the destroyers were only fit for scrap.
- What do you think of the answers? You can sign in to give your opinion on the answer.
- InquizetifLv 71 year ago