Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

The Washington Conference for The Limitation of Naval Armaments, 1921.

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • The Washington Conference for The Limitation of Naval Armaments, 1921.

    The main and salient feature of this conference, was that the tonnage ratio between the United States Navy, Royal navy, and Imperial Japanese Navy would be 5:5:3. Why so? It is mentioned, that the United States and Great Britain, were looking at each other as potential military rivals, with the rise of the United States as a rival to Great Britain, in merchant shipping. What this may suggest, is that other nations were also using the merchant shipping of these powers, perhaps, and hence, the differences, apart from the fact that the two nations were also engaging in the import and export of raw and finished materials and goods, for national purposes. Now, Japan was not a nation, which had a merchant fleet that was seen as important, if she had any merchant fleet at all. The Imperial Japanese Navy was built, because of the defense of Japan. The U. S. and Great Britain, perhaps thought, that they would have no personal reasons, to engage the Imperial Japanese Navy, on their part. I feel, that the United States was pondering keeping more naval ships in the Atlantic, than in the Pacific. I cannot really say, what the British intent was. The great blow, in the relations between the three naval powers was, when Great Britain, made redundant, the treaty she had with Japan, perhaps in part to ally the concerns of the U. S. A. The misunderstanding might have been on the part of the Japanese, who saw a tacit understanding between the U. S. A. and Great Britain, deliberately against Japan's interests. If these issues had been discussed, I cannot say, during the next naval conference of, I believe, 1930, at Great Britain.
    Perhaps, Great Britain and the U. S., did not think, that they would fight Japan on the sea's together, if at all. But, what was the combined strength of the Royal navy, and the U. S. Navy, in the Pacific Ocean, and what did Japan think about the future, about this?

  • #2
    Originally posted by AdityaMookerjee View Post
    The main and salient feature of this conference, was that the tonnage ratio between the United States Navy, Royal navy, and Imperial Japanese Navy would be 5:5:3. Why so?
    Great Britain had 3 oceans to cover (Atlantic, Pacific and Indian), the United States had 2 (Atlantic and Pacific), whilst the Japanese had only 1 (Pacific)


    Originally posted by AdityaMookerjee View Post
    It is mentioned, that the United States and Great Britain, were looking at each other as potential military rivals, with the rise of the United States as a rival to Great Britain, in merchant shipping. What this may suggest, is that other nations were also using the merchant shipping of these powers, perhaps, and hence, the differences, apart from the fact that the two nations were also engaging in the import and export of raw and finished materials and goods, for national purposes.
    Is there a purpose to ANY of what you just wrote?


    Originally posted by AdityaMookerjee View Post
    Now, Japan was not a nation, which had a merchant fleet that was seen as important, if she had any merchant fleet at all
    This is incorrect. Japan, being an island nation, had a large merchant fleet in addition to millions of tons of chartered ships.
    To give a small idea of Japan's merchant tonnage, the Allies sank virtually all Japanese shipping, 8.6 million tons. And it wasn't all built during the war.

    Originally posted by AdityaMookerjee View Post
    The Imperial Japanese Navy was built, because of the defense of Japan. The U. S. and Great Britain, perhaps thought, that they would have no personal reasons, to engage the Imperial Japanese Navy, on their part.
    Also incorrect. The United States especially envisioned the IJN as it's principal opponent not long after the Russo-Japanese War left the IJN as the dominant indigenous naval power in Far East.

    Originally posted by AdityaMookerjee View Post
    I feel, that the United States was pondering keeping more naval ships in the Atlantic, than in the Pacific. I cannot really say, what the British intent was. The great blow, in the relations between the three naval powers was, when Great Britain, made redundant, the treaty she had with Japan, perhaps in part to ally the concerns of the U. S. A. The misunderstanding might have been on the part of the Japanese, who saw a tacit understanding between the U. S. A. and Great Britain, deliberately against Japan's interests. If these issues had been discussed, I cannot say, during the next naval conference of, I believe, 1930, at Great Britain. Perhaps, Great Britain and the U. S., did not think, that they would fight Japan on the sea's together, if at all.
    Given the Japanese desire for a "Greater East Asia Co-prosperity Sphere", a polite euphemism for a Japanese colonial empire, there is no question as to a misunderstanding by anybody. The Japanese desire for Hakkō ichiu, the "eight corners under one [Japanese] roof" solidified this.

    These were all terms put forth around 1940, but put into practice many years before.

    Originally posted by AdityaMookerjee View Post
    But, what was the combined strength of the Royal navy, and the U. S. Navy, in the Pacific Ocean, and what did Japan think about the future, about this?
    Japan was partly furious, partly relieved by the naval treaties. On the one hand, they left Japan in a perceived inferior state. Others in Japan were relieved that a ruinously expensive naval arms race, one that Japan had zero chance of winning and 100% chance of bankrupting her, had been averted. Temporarily at least.

    This is basic prewar history. Find some books. Find some websites. Read.

    Then look up the definition of PARAGRAPH.
    “Never let yourself be persuaded that any one Great Man, any one leader, is necessary to the salvation of America. When America consists of one leader and 158 million followers, it will no longer be America.”
    ― Dwight D. Eisenhower

    Comment


    • #3
      Yep, heading off an arms race did suit the circumstances of those nations at that time.

      Essentially, the British scrapped their dreadnoughts and early battleships with 12" and 13.5" guns, while the Americans and Japanese scaled back their future building projects.

      Prime Minister and ex-Kaigun commander Kato Tomosaburo called the agreement "the gift of the gods".

      You've got me concerned about paragraphs, TopHatter, so I'm using four of them! :)

      Comment


      • #4
        Side note: The US was reading the Japanese encrypted communications throughout the 1921 conference.
        Trust me?
        I'm an economist!

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by clackers View Post
          You've got me concerned about paragraphs, TopHatter, so I'm using four of them! :)
          As I mentioned in another thread, it's all about readability. ;)
          “Never let yourself be persuaded that any one Great Man, any one leader, is necessary to the salvation of America. When America consists of one leader and 158 million followers, it will no longer be America.”
          ― Dwight D. Eisenhower

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by TopHatter View Post
            This is incorrect. Japan, being an island nation, had a large merchant fleet in addition to millions of tons of chartered ships.
            To give a small idea of Japan's merchant tonnage, the Allies sank virtually all Japanese shipping, 8.6 million tons. And it wasn't all built during the war.
            Actually found some closer figures.

            1,218 ships over 1000 GRT
            Consisting of 5,255,627 tons
            “Never let yourself be persuaded that any one Great Man, any one leader, is necessary to the salvation of America. When America consists of one leader and 158 million followers, it will no longer be America.”
            ― Dwight D. Eisenhower

            Comment


            • #7
              This is basic prewar history. Find some books. Find some websites. Read.

              Then look up the definition of PARAGRAPH.


              :pop:
              “Loyalty to country ALWAYS. Loyalty to government, when it deserves it.”
              Mark Twain

              Comment


              • #8
                Shorter sentences plz.

                It's very hard, in my opinion, to read a single sentence, separated by numerous commas, in an attempt to convey many different points, sometimes related, sometimes unrelated, written in a haphazard fashion, as if to incoporate random thoughts that pop up, most likely, spontaneously, into one's mind. In fact, I, too, sometimes ramble on, and on, about seemingly unrelated subjects, regarding the current discussion, much like what Peter Griffin does, when the scene cuts away, in the Fox sitcom, Family Guy, on something that is completely off the wall, unrelated, to the ongoing story line. One of the weirdest, of not the weirdest, cut-away in the Family Guy, is the random fight between Peter and the man-sized chicken, who seems like to pop up in the middle of a conversation, and fights Peter, for no apparent reason, continuously, from his house, to a restaurant, to a space shuttle, to the space station, causing the crash of the space station, into the ocean, and yet they continue to fight, as if they are oblivious to their current predicament.
                Last edited by gunnut; 20 Jun 12,, 20:14.
                "Only Nixon can go to China." -- Old Vulcan proverb.

                Comment


                • #9
                  I am in awe
                  “Never let yourself be persuaded that any one Great Man, any one leader, is necessary to the salvation of America. When America consists of one leader and 158 million followers, it will no longer be America.”
                  ― Dwight D. Eisenhower

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Gunnut,

                    That is not that impressive.....you just engaged your bullshit gene and went to town!;)
                    “Loyalty to country ALWAYS. Loyalty to government, when it deserves it.”
                    Mark Twain

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Let's not make this into a "my gene is bigger than your gene" thread.
                      Last edited by gunnut; 21 Jun 12,, 19:03.
                      "Only Nixon can go to China." -- Old Vulcan proverb.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        People with bigger genes have bigger asses
                        Meddle not in the affairs of dragons, for you are crunchy and taste good with ketchup.

                        Abusing Yellow is meant to be a labor of love, not something you sell to the highest bidder.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Do my genes make me look fat?
                          "Only Nixon can go to China." -- Old Vulcan proverb.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Gene's great, won't hear a word against him ...

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by gunnut View Post
                              Do my genes make me look fat?
                              No, it's your fat that makes you look fat
                              Meddle not in the affairs of dragons, for you are crunchy and taste good with ketchup.

                              Abusing Yellow is meant to be a labor of love, not something you sell to the highest bidder.

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X