CACrown ArchivesThe cinema collection
EN/FR
Search
Menu
Research dossier · History & Society

Two-Ocean Navy Act

Law that increased the size of the United States Navy by 70%

Layered newspapers, civic records and oral-history reels arranged as chronological evidence
History and societyInterpretive dossier study · Crown Archives visual atlas
Record originEnglish Wikipedia
Text licenseCC BY-SA 4.0
Source revisionApr 24, 2026
Entity authoritySource title only
Source-derived summary

The Two-Ocean Navy Act, also known as the Vinson–Walsh Act, was a United States law enacted on July 19, 1940, and named for Carl Vinson and David I. Walsh, who chaired the Naval Affairs Committee in the House and Senate respectively. In what was then the largest naval procurement bill to date in U.S. history, it increased the size of the United States Navy by 70%.

Editorial summary

Begin with the source’s own compact description: “Two-Ocean Navy Act” is law that increased the size of the United States Navy by 70%. The dossier treats that line as a proposition to test through Two-Ocean, Navy and increased, not as a finished interpretation.

Editorial reviewMost valuable as an event-and-institution map that identifies actors, dates and record creators for deeper historical inquiry. The current lead gives the account dated anchors—1940—that can be checked directly. The selected authority fields contribute no independent date. For this dossier, Two-Ocean, Navy and increased is the immediate research focus.
Editorial analysis

Why this record matters

The phrase “law that increased the size of the United States Navy by 70%” supplies a clear boundary for inquiry. It also exposes the unanswered questions: who defined that boundary, when it became stable and which sources sit outside it.

Evidence profile

The record creator and administrative purpose are central evidence, because official documentation reflects both action and institutional priorities. The source revision retrieved here is dated Apr 24, 2026. The first chronological checks are 1940.

Critical limits

Institutional narratives can privilege the records that survived while minimizing voices that were never formally collected. The lead is largely declarative, so disagreement and counter-evidence require a deliberate search beyond the opening account. Authority statements aid reconciliation but still require their own references, qualifiers and ranks to be checked.

How to read it

Compare institutional narratives with records created by participants and affected communities. Dates and formal titles are useful anchors, but not substitutes for context.

Best used for
  • Event chronology
  • Institutional context
  • Locating named record creators
Verify next

Contemporary correspondence, government or organizational records, oral histories and cited historical scholarship.

Three-step research path

  1. Establish the record: confirm the title “Two-Ocean Navy Act”, its source revision and the description used here.
  2. Expand the search: follow Two-Ocean Navy Act primary sources, Two-Ocean Navy Act archive and Two-Ocean research across catalogues and specialist indexes.
  3. Test the account: compare the strongest cited source with the responsible institution’s current record and note any disagreement.

Questions for further research

  1. Which source most directly establishes the central claim about “Two-Ocean Navy Act”?
  2. What chronology connects this entry to wider political or social change?
  3. Who created the surviving record, and for what administrative purpose?
Subject index

Search terms from this dossier

Source & attribution

This entry incorporates text from “Two-Ocean Navy Act” on English Wikipedia. Contributors are listed in the page history. Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 License. Selected authority identifiers and statements are retrieved from Wikidata under CC0; their references and qualifiers remain part of the verification path.