Washington Naval Treaty Text

[Enaris]

As I mentioned in the Books thread, one of the books I've been reading lately is "Warships after Washington: The Development of the Five Major Fleets 1922-1930" by John Jordan.  A very good and interesting book, looking at how nations reacted to the new restrictions.  One of the appendices of the book has the actual text of the Washington Naval Treaty, which, for a treaty is actually fairly short and clear.  As a public document, it's not hard to find on the web, and for those who are interested, it can be found here:

 

http://www.ibiblio.o...22/nav_lim.html

 

Enjoy!

[Windhover118]

That book looks interesting, I think I will check it out. The document itself is very interesting. The time around 1930 which was the London Naval treaty is very interesring because thats around the time that the various nations began to rearm. Japan and Italty refused to sign the London Naval treaty so it proved largely ineffective. All sides eventually started building warships that exceeded international limits. It also interesting when you start to compare treaty warships with post treaty warships.

[Ariecho]

Interestingly enough (unless I missed it), neither Germany or the USSR were part of the treaty.  Germany, I can understand, as it was already under another non-rearmament treaty, but I guess that all parties didn't consider the USSR as a serious contender.

 

Would someone explain to me why Japan got such a bigger tonnage than France and Italy?

[JeeWeeJ]

Ariecho, on 23 August 2012 - 03:10 PM, said:

Interestingly enough (unless I missed it), neither Germany or the USSR were part of the treaty.  Germany, I can understand, as it was already under another non-rearmament treaty, but I guess that all parties didn't consider the USSR as a serious contender.

Would someone explain to me why Japan got such a bigger tonnage than France and Italy?

I believe Japan negotiated that tonnage because her navy was of much greater importance for its defence (as an island nation) than it would be for France or Italy (as those two countries pretty much only had the mediterranian as their playfield and Japan every sea/ocean that surrounds it). Still, i believe Japan wasnt really pleased as her main precieved enemy (the US) was allowed a much larger fleet.

[Ariecho]

JeeWeeJ, on 23 August 2012 - 03:27 PM, said:

I believe Japan negotiated that tonnage because her navy was of much greater importance for its defence (as an island nation) than it would be for France or Italy (as those two countries pretty much only had the mediterranian as their playfield and Japan every sea/ocean that surrounds it). Still, i believe Japan wasnt really pleased as her main precieved enemy (the US) was allowed a much larger fleet.

The US was perceived as a Japan's enemy in 1921?  Real question, not being sarcastic.  What about the USSR?

[JeeWeeJ]

Ariecho, on 23 August 2012 - 03:35 PM, said:

The US was perceived as a Japan's enemy in 1921?  Real question, not being sarcastic.  What about the USSR?

I'm going to quote a bit of Wikipedia here:

Wikipedia said:

Japanese denunciation

The naval treaty had a profound effect on the Japanese. With superior American and even British industrial power, a long war would very likely end in a Japanese defeat. Thus, gaining parity on the strategic level was not economically possible.

Many Japanese saw the 5:5:3 ratio of ships as another way of being snubbed by the West (though it can be argued that the Japanese, having a one-ocean navy, had a far greater concentration of force than the two-ocean United States Navy or the three-ocean Royal Navy). It also contributed to a schism in high ranks of the Imperial Japanese Navy between the Treaty Faction officers on the one hand and on the other those opposed to it, who were also allied to the ultranationalists in the Japanese army and other parts of the Japanese government. For Treaty Faction opponents, the Treaty was one of the factors which contributed to the deterioration of the relationship between the United States and the Japanese Empire. The perception of unfairness led to Japan's renunciation of the Naval Limitation Treaties in 1936. Isoroku Yamamoto, who later masterminded the Pearl Harbor attack, held that Japan should remain in the treaty and was therefore regarded by many as a member of the Treaty Faction. His view was more complex, however, in that he felt the United States could out-produce Japan by a greater factor than the 5:3 ratio because of the huge US production advantage, on which he was expert, having served in the Japanese Embassy in Washington. He felt that other methods would be needed to even the odds, which may have contributed to his advocacy of the plan to attack Pearl Harbor. However, he did not have sufficient influence at Navy headquarters or in the government.

On 29 December 1934, the Japanese government gave formal notice that it intended to terminate the treaty. Its provisions remained in force until the end of 1936, and it was not renewed, Japan effectively leaving the treaty in 1936.

Source


Suffice to say that the Japanese Empire was "not amused" as it wanted to be a major power in the pacific, but was treated like a second rank nation. Plus with Japan becoming more and more militaristic they must have felt threatend by what they saw as a potential superior US naval precence. If somebody is allowed to build an army in or near your backyard, wouldt you see that army as your most likely enemy?

The USSR was at that time still pulling itself together after the revolution of 1917, so i dont think they were seen as a serious threat, nor were they in a process of building a major fleet. And the fleet they did have was pretty much wiped out by Japan during the Russo - Japanese war.

[Ariecho]

Thanks, JeeWeej!  I can understand the Japanese frustration after the treaty, but I didn't know that they had any anti-US feelings before it.  After all, both were fighting on the same side during WW1.

[JeeWeeJ]

Ariecho, on 23 August 2012 - 05:14 PM, said:

Thanks, JeeWeej!  I can understand the Japanese frustration after the treaty, but I didn't know that they had any anti-US feelings before it.  After all, both were fighting on the same side during WW1.

You're welcome! :)

And, well, perhaps you couldnt call it real anti-US feelings at the time, but just like the US had warplans against the British Empire i reckon that Japan had the same for the most likely "big" adversary: the US. And being treated like a second rank nation didnt help. Hell, when war broke out, the Brits thought that Japan would be easily pushed back as the Japs werent "real people" afterall.. Like in THIS propaganda poster. Discrimination much?

Anyway, proper anti-US feelings came after the US decided to stop oil exports to Japan in the late 30's, with Japan also realising that the US wouldnt allow Japan to go through with its expansion plans. But thats another story.

[Windhover118]

Ariecho, on 23 August 2012 - 05:14 PM, said:

Thanks, JeeWeej!  I can understand the Japanese frustration after the treaty, but I didn't know that they had any anti-US feelings before it.  After all, both were fighting on the same side during WW1.

Japan saw the US as their main competator in the Pacific and and JeeWeej said, felt they were being cheated even though they had entered the war on the side of the allies. Honestly, the only reason Japan went along with the treaty for so long was because it also kept the US from fortifying its position in the Pacific.

[Ariecho]

Quote

Anyway, proper anti-US feelings came after the US decided to stop oil exports to Japan in the late 30's, with Japan also realising that the US wouldnt allow Japan to go through with its expansion plans. But thats another story.

That I remember!

[Enaris]

A very good book on how Japanese Naval Strategy (among other things) developed is Kaigun, by Evans and Peattie.

 

It's a fairly long topic, but the very short and dirty version is that the US and British were allowed a higher overall tonnage because of their levels of commitment.  The US needed enough fleet to deal with both the Atlantic and Pacific (even with the Panama Canal, it's not quick or easy to shift the fleet back and forth), and the British still had most of their Empire to defend.  Japan on the other hand was viewed as only needing naval strength in their part of the Pacific.

 

Anyway, in some ways the antagonism towards the US became something of a self-fulfilling prophecy.  After WW1, the US and Great Britain were seen as the only serious opponents for the Japanese... and that led to a subtle but profound mindshift from there to "most likely opponents".  Then when you consider the power the military had in the interwar Japanese Empire AND consider the widespread resentment towards the treaty (some felt the treaty was vital for Japan, to keep it from bankrupting itself for the fleet.  Others felt it kept Japan from their destiny as the dominant power in the Pacific)... well that's how you get to Pearl Harbor.

[xthetenth]

The US was also a way to get funding for the IJN. The Navy and the Army were locked in funding wars and needed geopolitical goals to justify getting the money, and the US was really the main way to justify it.

 

Another book that goes into some good detail and a lot of detail on the US side of things is War Plan Orange. It naturally focuses on the US end but does mention the Japanese end of the equation. The US justification for war planning is pretty interesting as well.

[tristan63]

this is a scam world of warships is a total scam know why? because its not real its a fake it doesnt exist plus it doesnt even let anyone AND I MEAN ANYONE play not even the creators this is bull crap!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! http://worldofwarships.com/

[Ariecho]

tristan63, on 26 August 2012 - 01:00 PM, said:

this is a scam world of warships is a total scam know why? because its not real its a fake it doesnt exist plus it doesnt even let anyone AND I MEAN ANYONE play not even the creators this is bull crap!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! http://worldofwarships.com/

http://prof77.files....e-your-meds.jpg

[JeeWeeJ]

tristan63, on 26 August 2012 - 01:00 PM, said:

this is a scam world of warships is a total scam know why? because its not real its a fake it doesnt exist plus it doesnt even let anyone AND I MEAN ANYONE play not even the creators this is bull crap!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! http://worldofwarships.com/

Now where did i put my tinfoil hat???
http://images.sodahe...5650438995.jpeg

[Windhover118]

tristan63, on 26 August 2012 - 01:00 PM, said:

this is a scam world of warships is a total scam know why? because its not real its a fake it doesnt exist plus it doesnt even let anyone AND I MEAN ANYONE play not even the creators this is bull crap!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! http://worldofwarships.com/

At the risk of taking this comment too seriously, you do realise that you cant play the game because it hasnt been released yet right? Its not even to alpha testing yet lol.

[xthetenth]

Did I just get downvoted because somebody didn't know that the game is still in early development?

[JeeWeeJ]

xthetenth, on 26 August 2012 - 07:21 PM, said:

Did I just get downvoted because somebody didn't know that the game is still in early development?

Ninja'ed your -1 away. :ph34r:

[Crag_r]

tristan63, on 26 August 2012 - 01:00 PM, said:

this is a scam world of warships is a total scam know why? because its not real its a fake it doesnt exist plus it doesnt even let anyone AND I MEAN ANYONE play not even the creators this is bull crap!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! http://worldofwarships.com/

http://www.myrasmuss...if_trolling.jpg

[flyingtaco]

back to the thread Japan recieved all of Germany's Pacific posession after World War I,  This also put them against the Brits and Americans ... book I read for a research paper a bit back said that the brits called the Nelson class BBs the "cherry tree battleships" because Washington chopped them down.... meaning the treatym abut alluding to the story about George Washington. The Nelson's  had that odd main battery arrangment so the Brits could put more vital stuff in a smaller area and ave weight in the armor belt.