NationStates Jolt Archive

The US, concerned about the increasing amounts of money spent on warships, is interested in an arms limitation treaty to limit the size of navies.

Therefore, the government so Britain, France, Germany, Italy, Russia, Colombia, Japan, China, and Turkey are invited to the conference.

ooc
also, the player finds it easier if we build historic warships, which were governed by this treaty

Colombia has sent representatives to Washington to take part in these treaties.

ooc: E20 :confused:

(OOC: Here (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=424002&page=1) )

France will attend.

Italy will also send a representative, but will not sign anything unless Russia and Germany also sign something.

OOC: Oooh! Is the Italian Schweinenhuntz scared?

IC: Germany will send a representative.

OOC: You bet your ass. Everyone from Brazil to Germany to Russia is going Red, my only real ally is France, and I am wary of everyone....

The Ottomans will send a representative.

China shall be attending the Conference, as China is honored to be considered a "Major" player in the international stage.

Ecuador will send it's representative to Washington D.C.

Colombia does not remember Ecuador ever being invited or informed of this conference. And why should it? Ecuador does not have a navy.

In the interests of promoting international peace, the Union has empowered Comrade Viktor Chernov as its chief representative at this proposed conference, though we attend with reservations.

US initial proposals:

1. Limit cruisers to 10,000 tons and 8 inch guns
2. Limit battleships to 35,000 tons and 16 inch guns
3. Limit number of battleships to a ratio of US 15, UK 15, Japan 10, Russia 10, Germany 10, Italy 8 France 8, Turkey 4, Colombia 4, China 4
4. Battle cruisers above 10,000 tons are classified as battleships for this purpose.
5. Battlecruisers can be converted into carriers, as can battleships without counting against the limit. However, upper limit on carriers is US 5, UK 5,
Japan 5, all other nations 2.
6. No nation can have more than 100 submarines of any type.
7. Seaplane carriers do not count as carriers.
8. No construction of battleships for 10 years except those under construction or planned that will not exceed the limit.
9. All battleships and submarines above the limit shall be scrapped, and not sold to other nations.
10. Predreadnought battleships shall count against the limit.
11. There is no limit on the number of cruisers under 10,000 tons, nor on destroyers or smaller vessels. Mostly in difference to the US and UK, who have a lot more ocean to patrol than everyone else.

ooc
This is actually an advantage to everyone except the US and UK, and even the UK will benefit as it simply doesn't have as much money to burn as the US does. It is also makes life easier for me the war moderator, but thats another issue (chuckle). Treaty proposal is based on the actual Washington Naval Treaty signed in 1921, the first reasonably successful arms limitation treaty. As the US player I will also point out that the US can easily outbuild any other nation.. for an example, look at the US Navy in World War II... with
over 20 battleships, over 100 carriers, over 100 cruisers etc... and not go broke in the process while everyone else will :)

to sweeten the pot, secretly, the US will offer a firm alliance with Britain and France if they accept the treaty. It already has one with Colombia, and France to a limited extent, and informal working relationships with the British and French. Plus a formal treaty still remains in effect with Japan. All of this will be quietly emphasized behind the scenes.

"First, let me say that the Union desires nothing more than a lasting peace for all mankind.
Having fought and suffered through ten long years and more of war, our people have become all too familiar with its hardships and its terrors.
Yet, it is also truly said that peace cannot come but with justice. Why, truly, need there to be national Navies at all? Have we assembled to discuss peace, or to contemplate the next Great War?"

The Chinese Ambassador, Lu Hong, spoke.

"You say that China is limited to a degree far less than its neighbors? I must express my disagreement.

For one thing, China needs a considerable Navy to protect its shores and many large rivers, such as the Yangtze and Yellow Rivers. There are those who still seek to plunder or attack China for its riches and natural resources. We need a respectable Navy to deter any invasion fleets from such an endeavour aganist China.

China is roughly the same size as the USA, while being dictated to only 4 battleships, a number far less than Japan, China's tiny neighbor. Likewise for aircraft carriers.

I propose that all nations are given an equal limit. Let's say everybody is able to build 15 battleships and 5 carriers at maximum. This will allow for future development, retaining flexibility, and maintain a strict status quota, or so to speak."

Columbia doesn't control us. If they didn't have any ships how did they conquer Galapago Islands. We have the BAE Guayas. Plus we became a nation in 1830. So we send a representative to Washington D.C. to represent our Navy.

Also we should also know what is happening to our neighbor Columbia. We didn't want a new war to start with Ecuador fighing. We mere just want to see this treaty take place.

Britain will sign this treaty on the provision that the terms agreed at the start remain constant and are not altered for the benefit of other nations.

OOC: Sharina, the numbers given were just ratios so say I build 45 battleships (extremely unlikely, but anyway), the US would be able to build the same number, Japan can build 30 and you can build 12. The only upper limit set is for carriers (and converted vessels, sea plane vessels etc. don't count against this) and most countries will only need one or two of these.

So you are limited slightly but as other nations increase their navies you'lll be allowed to do the same.

Finally the ratios are done by comparing the need for vessels to protect overseas colonies and islands. China has few islands and no colonies so it is limited more than Britain which has hundreds of overseas colonies.

I suggest we all sign it for the sake of easing GB's job as war mod, i'm sure it's difficult enough already.

"My Dear Chinese friend; For what purpose do you need Aircraft Carriers? You claim to have defencive intentions, but Aircraft Carriers are offencive vessels, designed to enlarge the effective striking range of an attack. It doesn't make sense according to your claims.

And you Russian Socialists ask, 'Why not dismantle all Navies?' well, I don't remember every country of the world attending this conference. Of Course, we're also assuming that every country in the world will follow the examples of the larger powers by dismantling their navy. It would be impossible. We would have no means to defend ourselves, against those who would choose not to remove their navy.

Speaking of which, who would enforce this treatice? You? With no Navy?"

Japan would like the ratio on battleships to 15UK 15US 15Japan, we are not a second rate country and request that we do not be treated that way. We have vast colonies to patrol as well.

Secondly we wish Argentina to be counted in this ratio at 4.

We would also like the Carrier Ratio to be only FLEET carriers with Escort and light Carriers to be counted in the Cruiser/Destroyer area.

"We agree with Japan in regards to Argentina; They should be allowed four battleships.

One thing that perturbs us, is the 10,000t limit. I don't know if anyone else has noticed or not, but all of our cruisers are over 10,000t. Are you going to reimburse Colombia, because the scrapped iron and steel is not enough to account for the monetary loss for having to rebuild all the cruisers."

British delegate:

"Whilst I agree with my Japanese colleague as to our allies Argentina being included in the treaty at the ratio of 4. I have to dispute his need to gain a ratio of 15. I ask the honourable Japanese gentleman what he would do with such a large fleet. A fleet this size would be on par with US and British fleets and surpass those of Russia and Germany. The US and Britain have alway shad powerful fleets and require them to maintain their sizeable foreign and overseas concerns. Japan has no such wide ranging empire and no colonies to speak of, she maintains a fairly small quarter of the Pacific and needs no large fleet. Indeed Japans current allocation of 10 ratio vessels is still larger than those of Italy, France and Turkey and these ahve long been strong international powers who maintain empires and colonies overseas. The only threat against Japan would be from her region and that only consists of China and Russia, china has 6 less ratio points and Russia would have a fleet of a similar size to you. Therefore I must argue against an altering of the treaty to increase the size of the Japanese fleet."

OOC: Colombia are all your cruisers of the armoured type?

That's about the only contemporary cruiser to go over the limit, I only have 15 of these ships currently in service (the last built in 1907) and am replacing these with light cruisers. Armoured cruisers are considered obsolete and most navies no longer use them. However some smaller nations such as yourself would perhaps maintain a few of these older vessels and maybe a provision should be written into the treaty for them.

On a similar note how many of these cruisers do you have? Also how many battleships, as the ratio for you is 4 heavy vessels for every 15 that I own you may be OK.

I have around 60 heavy ships (including the 15 old cruisers previously mentioned) already in service (plus around another 15-20 in mothball and being scrapped) so the ratio for your nations would be quadroupled, eg. Colombia would be alowed 16 vessels, Japan 45 etc. unless the USA has more than 60 heavy vessels already in service.

OOC
A few things: You may have noticed in the war thread during the Great War that armored cruisers were blown to shreds in fairly alarming numbers, and each one of those ships had a crew of 750 -1000 men, and the Germans for example lost 10 in one day, while the French lost 4. They are too weakly armed and armored for the batteline, and not fast enough to hunt down light cruisers. So they are as obsolete as the predreadnought battleships.

Battlecruisers are relatively fast, but have not seen combat. However, battleships are now in service or being built that are as fast as a battlecruiser but have better protection and the same firepower. So battlecruisers are now obsolescent except to protect trade from commerce raiders, something a heavy cruiser can do cheaper.

Carriers have not seen combat service either, but the potential is already clear for them. They are clearly a capital ship, especially larger ones, and thus limiting them makes sense the same as limiting battleships.

Cruisers are for trade protection, scouting and commerce raiding, and a substitute for battleships in extremis. The US, France, Great Britian, Australia, and the Netherlands have huge amounts of overseas territory that require patrolling. No one else really does. Thats why no limits are being set. Cruisers also suffered serious losses during the Great War but were clearly very useful. Destroyers serve the same purpose but are cheaper. less well armed and have a shorter range, making them more suitable for escorting cruisers and capital ships instead of operating on their own. They suffered very heavy losses but saw more action than any other class of ship during the Great War.

Submarines did get a little service during the Great War, but sank several combat ships and proved extremely useful for protecting coastlines and their potential as an offensive weapon is clear. Limiting their numbers is in the vital interest of the US and Britain, and to a lesser extent France and Japan.

IC
The British are making the American point admirably. In addition, the US points out to Japan that it faces far fewer potential battlegrounds than the US and British navies, who have to patrol the Pacific and Atlantic, and in the British case, also the Mediterranean and Indian Ocean. The Japanese only have to protect their portion of the Western and Northern Pacific.

"Colombia has no battleships, but has close to 10 Armoured Cruisers, and 6 Battlecruisers. Now this means all of these are obsolete or illegal under this treatice. Not very good for us I must say.

Having said that, we will begin scrapping much of our fleet. As this is quite a large undertaking, we hope that both the United States and Great Britain could assist us."

GB, Chatzy?

OOC: Colombia, you should be OK at 16 heavy vessels, it's within the allowed ratio. (4x4=16). But if you want to expand your navy at any point you'll have to scrap a few vessels. I'd dismantle some of the old cruisers anyway. They're more of a liability and a cost than a real assest.

OOC: Colombia, you should be OK at 16 heavy vessels, it's within the allowed ratio. (4x4=16). But if you want to expand your navy at any point you'll have to scrap a few vessels. I'd dismantle some of the old cruisers anyway. They're more of a liability and a cost than a real assest.

OOC
actually the armored cruisers don't count at all, as all are under 10,000 tons, just the battle cruisers count, and scrapping 2 puts him under treaty limits. He could easily convert both to carriers, and then have 2 scouting groups similar to what the US Navy has, one for each ocean. Which fits in well with US Navy needs to defend the Western Hemisphere. The armored cruisers are pretty obsolete though, and Colombia can just scrap them and use the steel for something else. I would suggest light cruisers and destroyers. Colombia, battle cruisers aren't obsolete, if used properly for trade protection, escorting carriers, and scouting. But they are not match for a fast battleship. You could also up armor them, similar to what the Japanese did historically with their Kongo class battle cruisers that got converted to fast battleships. Cut the speed to 24 knots and increase armor protection and you have a slightly undergunned (12 inch vs 14 inch) version of the Japanese Kongo class.

Remember, cruisers under 10,000 tons don't count against limits.

ooc: I've already decided. I will have three different types of Cruisers.

Battlecruiser: 16,700t normal; 8 x 13.5" guns, 29kts;
Heavy Cruiser: 10,750t normal; 8 x 11.5" guns, 32.5kts; (Based on Kent Class)
Light or Regular Cruiser: Undecided;

4 Battlecruisers
6 Heavy Cruisers
10 Light or Regular Cruisers

...destroyers are another issue. Bah.

The US proposes to scrap the following to fall within treaty limits:
2 Wyoming class (Wyoming,) 27,000 tons, 21 knots, 12 x 12 inch, 21 x 5 inch, 4 x 3 inch
2 Florida class (Florida, Utah) 22,000 tons, 21 knots, 10 x 12 inch, 16 x 5 inch, 4 x 3 inch
2 Delaware class (Delaware, North Dakota, refitted 1918), 22,000 tons, 10 x 12 inch, 12 x 5 inch, 12 x 3 inch
2 South Carolina class (South Carolina, Michigan refitted 1916), 22,000 tons, 8 x 12 inch, 12 x 5 inch, 12 x 3 inch


convert the pre dreadnought Oregon into a museum and decommission her

also cancel 4 South Dakota class battleships (South Dakota 1923, Washington 1924, Montana 1923, North Carolina 1924) 42,000 tons, 23 knots, 12 x 16 inch, 12 x 5 inch, 12 x 3 inch
plus cancel 1 Colorado class BB (Washington), 2 Ranger class battle cruisers

This would give the US Navy by 1922 15 battleships
3 Colorado class battleships (Colorado 1921, West Virginia 1921, Maryland 1922, ), 33,000 tons, 21 knots, 8 x16 inch, 12 x 5 inch, 8 x 3 inch,
2 Tennessee class (Tennessee, California) 33,000 tons, 21 knots, 12 x 14 inch, 14 x 5 inch, 4 x 3 inch
3 New Mexico class (New Mexico, Mississippi, Idaho), 33,000 tons, 21 knots, 12 x 14 inch, 14 x 5 inch, 4 x 3 inch
2 Pennsylvania class (Pennsylvania, Arizona) 32,000 tons, 21 knots, 12 x 14 inch, 14 x 5 inch, 4 x 3 inch
2 Nevada class (Nevada, Oklahoma) 28,000 tons, 21 knots, 10 x 14 inch, 21 x 5 inch, 4 x 3 inch
2 New York class (New York, Texas) 27,000 tons, 21 knots, 10 x 14 inch, 21 x 5 inch, 4 x 3 inch
1 x Arkansas class battleship (Arkansas) 27,000 tons, 21 knots, 12 x 12 inch, 21 x 5 inch, 4 x 3 inch

Therefore scrapping of the Utah, Florida, and Wyoming would be delayed until the last of the Colorado class ships is finished (the Maryland)

Converted into carriers would be 4 USN battlecruisers
4 Lexington class Battle cruisers (Lexington, Saratoga,Yorktown, Princeton)(refitted 1917-18), 22,000 tons, 30 knots, 8 x 12 inch, 8 x 5 inch, 24 x 3 inch which would become 22,000 tons, 35 knots, 8 x 5 inch, 6 x 3 inch, 100 aircraft (making them slightly larger than the historic Yorktown class)

This would give the USN 8 Carriers
4 x Lexington class (100 aircraft, 88,000 tons total)
4 x Theodore Roosevelt class (upgraded to 60 aircraft)(72,000 tons total)

Therefore, the US would like to alter its proposal on carriers from a limit on numbers to a limit on overall tonnage, modifying it to no more than 160,000 tons for the USN, RN, and IJN, and 80,000 tons for other navies. (ooc, which is historically larger by a bit than what was agreed with)

In addition, instead of scrapping ships, they can be used as targets
or used as target ships permanently as long as their guns are removed

ooc: GB, chatzy?

ooc: GB, chatzy?

unavailable for that until 9 PM Pacific Time .. at work, then family obligations

"First, let me say that the Union desires nothing more than a lasting peace for all mankind.
Having fought and suffered through ten long years and more of war, our people have become all too familiar with its hardships and its terrors.
Yet, it is also truly said that peace cannot come but with justice. Why, truly, need there to be national Navies at all? Have we assembled to discuss peace, or to contemplate the next Great War?"

The United States points out that not all of the nations of the world are present at the conference, and a major step toward peace would be reducing the threat of war. So limiting navies to a smaller size would be a good first step in that direction.

However, the United States feels its navy is the most vital part of its national defense, and the previous behavior by European nations toward nations in the Western Hemisphere, and the US treaty commitments it has in the Pan American Treaty, require it to have a strong navy. So eliminating navies is not a solution the United States feels is practical or desirable from its perspective.

France will, with some reluctance, sign the treaty. However, they are not at all pleased with the idea of Germany and Russia having more ships then France and Italy. However, the knowledge that the US will back them in an aliiance weighs on their decision.

If it would so please the United States, we will take one of the Wyoming Class and convert her to a Carrier to suit Colombian purposes. With its base in Syracuse, Colombia has many trade routes that need protection.

Germany is disgusted at the fact that the Anglo Pigdogs have put themselves above all others. Even our friends and allies the Chinese, with 4 times the number of the Americans are limited nearly 5 times! This is elitism at its worst! Germany believes that the numbers all across the world should be severly limited at an equal amount, such that no nation would have precedence over the other.

The Ottoman Government will sign this treaty into effect, if only all the major nation of this meeting sign also.

If it would so please the United States, we will take one of the Wyoming Class and convert her to a Carrier to suit Colombian purposes. With its base in Syracuse, Colombia has many trade routes that need protection.

One of the Treaty provisions is that ships be scrapped or used as targets and not transferred. So the US would not be able to do that. However, the US will agree to convert 2 Colombian battlecruisers into Theodore Roosevelt class carriers, and upgrade the four remaining Colombian battle cruisers if Colombia is unable to.

Parthini']Germany is disgusted at the fact that the Anglo Pigdogs have put themselves above all others. Even our friends and allies the Chinese, with 4 times the number of the Americans are limited nearly 5 times! This is elitism at its worst! Germany believes that the numbers all across the world should be severly limited at an equal amount, such that no nation would have precedence over the other.

The United States government reminds the German government that the United States government retains an army a fifth the size of the German government in peacetime. It also reminds the German government that the British Isles and North America cannot be attacked except by sea, and therefore a navy is absolutely vital to American and British interests to a far greater extent than it is to Germany, which has few overseas territories, and is far more vulnerable to invasion by land than by sea, and therefore its army is much more vital to its interests.

The United States government also reminds the German government that because of that geographical fact, does the German government have any doubt that the British or American government unrestricted by Treaty could build a fleet large enough to ensure dominion of the seas, as they would not be distracted by the need to maintain a large standing army, and therefore, it is in the interest of Germany to have some limitation on British and American seapower. Or face the fact that irregardless, the Americans and British will ensure that they retain that dominion.

Therefore, in the interests of peace, it benefits all of the nations present to limit the naval arms race to prevent the need and the likely tension that a naval arms race would cause. And thus doing, reduce the possibilities of war?

Colombia will indeed send two of to the United States. The other four are being scrapped for our new Battle Cruiser design, which according to the designers, is maybe the most powerful in the world, at this point in time.

ooc: I'll post the specs and such later. I will need your help on this one GB.

"It is the opinion of Italy that the rules in this treaty are, for the most part, fair. Italy will therefore sign the treaty if all the other Great Powers sign this treaty. We hope it will keep the peace, and allow money that would otherwise be spent on war machines to go into the betterment of our economies."

Colombia will indeed send two of to the United States. The other four are being scrapped for our new Battle Cruiser design, which according to the designers, is maybe the most powerful in the world, at this point in time.

ooc: I'll post the specs and such later. I will need your help on this one GB.

The point of the treaty is that there will be no building of battleships (which includes battle cruisers) for ten years. However, the US would be willing to include a provesion allowing the Colombians to replace all four of their remaining battleships with new construction if it is generally agreeable.

ooc
I would suggest looking at the British Renown and Hood class Battlecruisers, the French Dunkerque class, the German Scharnhorst class, the German Hindenburg class, American Lexington class (the historical one) and the Japanese Kongo class.

Just remember that the limit is 35,000 tons and 16 inch guns

"It is the opinion of Italy that the rules in this treaty are, for the most part, fair. Italy will therefore sign the treaty if all the other Great Powers sign this treaty. We hope it will keep the peace, and allow money that would otherwise be spent on war machines to go into the betterment of our economies."

So far willing to sign are the United States, France, Italy, Turkey, and Colombia, while the British appear willing to sign.

The Russians have not committed either way, while the Germans, Chinese and Japanese do not appear to like the treaty and have expressed reservations.

Chile requests parity with Argentina.

Chile requests parity with Argentina.

Galveston Bay here,


Argentina isn't actually at the conference, nor is Australia. So I suppose giving those two nations, along with Chile, parity with Colombia is fair. However, its doubtful that any of those three nations could afford to operate more than a single dreadnought, coastal defense battleship or battlecruiser, a couple of light or heavy cruisers and some destroyers. Super dreadnoughts are getting very expensive very quickly, and carriers are more expensive still.

For that matter, Colombia's economy would move up a lot quicker if it wasn't paying for all those expensive warships. A Colombian navy that consisted of 2 heavy cruisers, 4 light cruisers, 20 destroyers and 2 carriers plus some submarines (about 20) would be very potent for its size, and not drain the economy nearly as much as its present navy does.

ooc
I would suggest looking at the British Renown and Hood class Battlecruisers, the French Dunkerque class, the German Scharnhorst class, the German Hindenburg class, American Lexington class (the historical one) and the Japanese Kongo class.

Just remember that the limit is 35,000 tons and 16 inch guns

ooc: I actually looked at an American Design along with Italian Designs. I based them off these two... they were actually designs that were never completed. The American version eventually lead to the Alaska, but it gave me a good idea for tonnage, propulsion, speed, and manpower. The Italian Design gave me the idea's behind the armament, armour, and tonnage as well. I slimmed them down a bit, to reflect the time and such as well.

My Heavy Cruiser is based off of the British Kent Class.

ooc
since we are all here, at least the big powers

IC
The United States requests that the nations present, plus other nations as well, meet in the Hague, Netherlands, in one years time to discuss other measures to reduce the harshness of war.

At this time, the Geneva 1st and 2nd Conventions and the Hague Convention of 1899 are in effect. The US proposes that those conventions be reaffirmed, and that a new discussion on further measures to reduce the horrors of war be taken (ooc we didn't have the Hague Convention of 1907, since we had a war at the time)

http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/lawofwar/lawwar.htm

OOC
This would also lay the ground work for the Kellog Briand Pact of 1929 outlawing war as an instrument of national policy (idealistic, but hey, worth a shot)
http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/imt/kbpact.htm

France agrees to meet in one years time and has ordered their scientists to begin thinking up new battleships that will meet the limits of the treaty.

The Chinese Ambassador, Lu Hong, shot the German Ambassador a grateful look. Hong stood up and spoke.

"China will sign this Washington treaty on two conditions.

First, China shall have naval parity with Japan and Russia, its neighbors. If China has a severely restricted Navy, then it cannot protect its 14,500 kilometer coastline effectively aganist any major invasion or such. We are not currently interested in building more ships than the USA or Britain. We only want to be equal to Japan, Russia, Germany, France, Italy, and the other European nations in naval size. After all, we have a considerable land territory, population base, and a good amount of coastline to defend. China requests its limits to be upped to Japanese or German levels.

Second, this treaty must allow for future expansion. For instance, should the USA construct 30 battleships, then Britain should be allowed to build 30, Japan and China build 20, and so on.

Once these two points are agreed upon, then China will be far more inclined to sign and follow this treaty."

OoC: Honestly, I don't think I could build a bigger fleet than the one proposed by the treaty, however . . .

Chernov polished his glasses, and glanced over at the German representative, who had remained altogether too quiet in his opinion. Then he spoke again.

"In truth my question has been misinterpreted twice, rather than answered--or rather it has been answered, but indirectly.

"With the possible exception of the American delegate, it is clear enough to me that no-one in this room besides myself is willing to even consider so 'radical' a notion as the desirability of an end to war itself. You men may bicker over the sizes of your countries' fleets, and think yourself to thereby represent the interests of your respective nations, but how have you served your people by taking away the fruits of their own labor in order to build instruments of murder? This is madness - obviously so to anyone with the wit to see it. The praciticalities of living in the world may make the construction of weapons necessary for now, but this is so only because men like yourselves make it thus.

"I do not see any real progress being made here. Arguing over who gets how many tons of war-machine will not truly advance peace. That will obviously require a fundamental shift in mentality, and I see little possibility of that occurring in this room.

"Gentlemen, the Union dispatched me only reluctantly. It was expected that none of you would offer any constructive ideas towards real and lasting world peace. And the Supreme Council was quite correct in that assessment. We are not concerned with bickering over tonnage and armaments. That we leave for war-mongering tribalists and exploitive industrialists.

"We will attend the Hague Conference with greater hope.

"I bid you good day, sirs."

Chernov departs the Conference.

"The poor Russian fools don't even understand that the construction of Naval Vessel spurs civil progress; Not only does it inspire jobs in this field, but it creates more for jobs in other fields, such as mining, refining, and transportation."


To himself, the Colombian Rep snickered, "Since when do Europeans want peace? Such idea's are merely put forward to get us to drop our guard."

The perceived failure of the Washington Naval Treaty with the withdrawal of the Russians has an immediate effect on American politics. The Democrats quickly gain ground, and Cox/Roosevelt ticket gains a huge amount of ground, making the defeat of the Harding/Coolidge ticket certain.

Cox begins speaking about an American/British/French military alliance to ensure the security of the Oceans and the Western Hemisphere and their friends in Western Europe from the dangerous elements of Socialism. The failure of Japan and China to agree to the Treaty also has repercussions in Congress.

A proposed Tariff on Chinese goods passes easily, while the extension of the American Japanese alliance, in place since 1905, barely passes Congress.

However there is still strong sentiment for reducing the horrors of war, and Cox urges that the US indeed attempt to enlarge the Hague and Geneva Conventions.

ooc
its an election year in America, always a volatile time, and after over 24 years of Republican Administrations, the Democrats want their turn and are determined to get it.

With the recent developments at the Washington Treaty and the success of the Democrats in the United States, Fracne, under th leadership of ALexandre Milerand, has begun pressing for an Anti-Communist Agression Pact against the growing power of Communist Germany and the Union.

In France, growing anti-communist sentiments explode in a three-day riot in Paris when a Communist group attempts to bypass police barricades to protest the crack-down on communism. Someone hurls a bomb at the police, killing two and levaing seven others injured. The police respond by opening fire on the crowd and calling armored cars to disperse them. Anti-Communists take to the streets and calsh with communist supporters. It takes three days for the riots to end, leaving forty-three dead and hundreds more injured, most of them communists.

Parliament passes another law further craking down on the communists, all but outlawing it as the majority of the blame forthe Paris Riots are placed on them.

OOC

IC
The British are making the American point admirably. In addition, the US points out to Japan that it faces far fewer potential battlegrounds than the US and British navies, who have to patrol the Pacific and Atlantic, and in the British case, also the Mediterranean and Indian Ocean. The Japanese only have to protect their portion of the Western and Northern Pacific.

OOC: I'm just trying to play early 20's japan, who wanted equallity and was outright demanding it.

IC: In the interest of Peace Japan will agree to the original provisions of the treaty as long as It's point on the difference between Fleet Carriers and Light/Escort Carriers is addressed.

OOC: I'm just trying to play early 20's japan, who wanted equallity and was outright demanding it.

IC: In the interest of Peace Japan will agree to the original provisions of the treaty as long as It's point on the difference between Fleet Carriers and Light/Escort Carriers is addressed.

the carrier issue was addressed by allocating a tonnage limit for carriers instead of a number of ships limit. The US, Japan and Britain each get 160,000 tons, everyone else 80,000 tons. Maximum size of a carrier limited to 42,000 tons, to allow the Americans and Japanese to convert some battle cruisers if desired.

However, as the Russians and Germans aren't going for it, the US does not feel that limiting the size of the US and British navies in the light of the Socialist refusal to accept the treaty is a wise action, so talks have ended at the moment.

Historically the Japanese were planning an 8/8 fleet (8 battleships, 8 battlecruisers) but were getting concerned about how they were going to pay for it when the treaty was agreed to.

the carrier issue was addressed by allocating a tonnage limit for carriers instead of a number of ships limit. The US, Japan and Britain each get 160,000 tons, everyone else 80,000 tons. Maximum size of a carrier limited to 42,000 tons, to allow the Americans and Japanese to convert some battle cruisers if desired.

However, as the Russians and Germans aren't going for it, the US does not feel that limiting the size of the US and British navies in the light of the Socialist refusal to accept the treaty is a wise action, so talks have ended at the moment.

Historically the Japanese were planning an 8/8 fleet (8 battleships, 8 battlecruisers) but were getting concerned about how they were going to pay for it when the treaty was agreed to.

ooC: by agreeing to it Japan was trying to throw the american public a bone, so that the treaty doesn't get cancelled.

OOC: Britain will sign the treaty as long as the Russians are made to as well, Britain will not limit her fleet whilst communist naval growth can continue unchecked.

Britain is extremely interested in an alliance with France, the USA and any South American or other European powers which wish to ally against the red threat. Argentina is welcome to increase her alliance iwth Britain to include these new allies and I would welcome any help in South America against possible communist tendencies in Brazil.

Russia and Brazil have just signed a Mutual Defense Pact.

OOC: Britain will sign the treaty as long as the Russians are made to as well, Britain will not limit her fleet whilst communist naval growth can continue unchecked.

Britain is extremely interested in an alliance with France, the USA and any South American or other European powers which wish to ally against the red threat. Argentina is welcome to increase her alliance iwth Britain to include these new allies and I would welcome any help in South America against possible communist tendencies in Brazil.

Japan would definetly be interested in fighting this Red Threat.

OOC: Britain will sign the treaty as long as the Russians are made to as well, Britain will not limit her fleet whilst communist naval growth can continue unchecked.

Britain is extremely interested in an alliance with France, the USA and any South American or other European powers which wish to ally against the red threat. Argentina is welcome to increase her alliance iwth Britain to include these new allies and I would welcome any help in South America against possible communist tendencies in Brazil.

President Hughes quietly informs the British government that after the election the United States government will wish to begin talks of matters of mutual concern, in light of the failure of the Washington Naval Treaty. On the agenda will be Brazil and a possible formal military alliance between the US and Britain, with the hopeful additions of France, Italy, Spain, Japan, and the Pan American treaty nations. A meeting in London in 1921 would be most useful, and the US government proposes March of 1921 for that meeting. (after the new administration is in office). Talks between the Republicans and Democrats have reached agreement on this matter.

OOC: FYI, Germany hasn't said anything about rejecting it. The more I think about it, the more I actually wouldn't mind doing so. I must discuss this further with my Comrades.

OOC: Britain will sign the treaty as long as the Russians are made to as well, Britain will not limit her fleet whilst communist naval growth can continue unchecked.

Britain is extremely interested in an alliance with France, the USA and any South American or other European powers which wish to ally against the red threat. Argentina is welcome to increase her alliance iwth Britain to include these new allies and I would welcome any help in South America against possible communist tendencies in Brazil.

France will sign a Mutual Defense Treaty with Britan against the Communists.

President Hughes quietly informs the British government that after the election the United States government will wish to begin talks of matters of mutual concern, in light of the failure of the Washington Naval Treaty. On the agenda will be Brazil and a possible formal military alliance between the US and Britain, with the hopeful additions of France, Italy, Spain, Japan, and the Pan American treaty nations. A meeting in London in 1921 would be most useful, and the US government proposes March of 1921 for that meeting. (after the new administration is in office). Talks between the Republicans and Democrats have reached agreement on this matter.

The French government quietly informs the Americans hat the yare very willing to attend this meeting.

OOC; Sorry for DP.

SIC: The British government informs the Americans that they are willing to host this conference in March 1921 in London under utmost secrecy and is willing to host any nations who wish to come (with obvious exceptions of course!).

Currently interested:

Britain
USA
France
Japan

Add Colombia, Chile, and Argentina to those that are interested.

SIC

The Palestinian GOvernement communicates it's desire to be part of thsi pact through contacts in the French government.

SIC

The Palestinian GOvernement communicates it's desire to be part of thsi pact through contacts in the French government.

ooc
perhaps the British should start a thread called the London Treaty Alliance (because if we called it NATO we will get all kinds of people posting who have no idea what we are doing, even more than we have now. I also recommend that if a Warsaw Pact is created, we call it ANYTHING else but that... I would suggest the Socialist Coalition or something like that)

Secret IC to Britain and America

Italy is willing to sign on to this anti-communist pact, as it now appears this treaty is null and void without Russian support.

*awaits other thread*

Secret IC:

China might be interested in this pact, however, it has major concerns about joining the pact as it shares quite a sizable border with Russia. China is in quite a precarious position, as there is little to stop the Russian armies from invading China, should Russo-Chinese relations go sour.

In consultation with our German allies, the Union has decided to sign the Washington Treaty on Naval Limitations. Our ambassador in Washington is empowered to do so as the Treaty stands.

- Supreme Council of the Union of Social-Democratic Republics

OOC: Nooooo! My plans! My wonderful, wonderful plans!

Germany is also willing to sign such a pact, in the interests of world peace.

In consultation with our German allies, the Union has decided to sign the Washington Treaty on Naval Limitations. Our ambassador in Washington is empowered to do so as the Treaty stands.

- Supreme Council of the Union of Social-Democratic Republics

Top Secret and encrypted Message to Russia
From: China

Greetings.

We applaud your efforts. I have been pondering of something of great impart and importance, and I would very much like to share it with you and Germany. China would like to host a secret conference between China, Russia, and Germany regarding Eurasia.

I am forwarding a similiar telegram to Germany, as the Germans have been extremely helpful towards China before and after the Great War. Germany has supported China while other powers were lackluster in support such as Italy and the United States.

Please contact me as quickly and secretively as possible. China cannot afford to have the Westerners pile on China if they discover Chinese pro-Russian and pro-German sentiment.

Thank you and go in peace.
~Emperor Guozu

------------------------------------------

A similiar top secret message is sent to Germany.

------------------------------------------

SIC:

Germany is very interested and agrees to send Senior Party Members to China.

OOC: Nooooo! My plans! My wonderful, wonderful plans!
OoC: And what plans might those have been, you vile Kapitalist aggressor-state, you?

SIC: The Union will also send a representative to China, to accompany and complement our German comrade.

OOC:

Here's the link to the secret conference thread.

http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?p=9603608#post9603608

ooc
speaking as the war moderator, thank goodness... that makes life easier for me in so many ways.

IC
The Washington Naval Treaty goes into effect 1921
1. Any ship armed with guns larger than 8.1 inches is considered a battleship for the purposes of this treaty. No consctruction of any new battleships except for those already under construction at the time the treaty is signed (July 1920) for 10 years (that is July 1930)
2. Any ship with guns larger than 5.1 inch and smaller than 8.1 inch is considered a cruisers. Cruisers are limited to 10,000 tons displacement.
3. Nations are limited to 100 submarines or less.
4. The United States and Great Britain are limited to 15 battleships, the Japanese, Russians and Germans are limited to 10 battleships, Italy and France are limited to 8 battleships, Turkey, Colombia and China are limited
to 4 battleships. For purposes of the treaty, the navies of the British Empire are all considered one navy (ooc, that means Australia)
5. Battleships are limited to 35,000 tons and cannot have guns larger than 16 inches.
6. The US, Britain and Japan are limited to 160,000 tons of carrier tonnage, all other treaty nations are limited to 60,000 tons. Carriers are limited to 42,000 tons (ooc historic size of US Lexington class and Japanese Akagi, Kaga class)
7. Seaplane tenders do not count as carriers.
8. All predreadnought battleships and battlecruisers count as battleships.
9. Any nation can build as many destroyers and cruisers as it can afford (ooc as war moderator I will be watching)
10. Ships in excess to the treaty limits shall be scrapped, demilitarized or otherwise disposed of within 2 years. They may not be transferred to other nations. (ooc, although the deal between Italy and the US was made before the treaty, as has any other deals that postdate this post)
11. Nations shall give one years notice before withdrawing from the Treaty, and if the treaty is violated, the nations who did not violate can immediately revoke it. In the event of war between treaty powers the treaty is revoked.

OOC
this actually is a benefit, as a lot of money is about to be saved, which I am sure lots of you will spend on armies.. but you can't have everything I guess

However the treaty came to late to change the mind of US voters who still decide to give the Democrats a chance but it does save the reputation of President Hughes.

The Democrats and Republicans do agree on one thing though, the meeting in London next year will go as planned, because of intelligence information provided to the senior leadership of the House and Senate (Magic intercepts.. ooc, the US read Japanese and others cables and radiograms all through the conference historically and they are also reading that elsewhere now as well. Its not called Magic, but its a convienent term)

Lu Hong spoke.

"China agrees to every term of the Washington Treaty, except point #4. China will match the German, Russian, and Japanese navies in size and power, as China is surrounded by Russia along with Japan to its east. China needs some form of aquedate naval protection, and having a navy half of both Japan and Russia guanatrees an easy defeat of the Chinese Navy, which would open up Chinese shores to invasion.

China will construct 10 battleships to match Germany, Russia, and Japan's 10 battleships solely for defensive reasons. Other than this issue, China is prepared to adhere to the Washington Treaty."

Lu Hong spoke.

"China agrees to every term of the Washington Treaty, except point #4. China will match the German, Russian, and Japanese navies in size and power, as China is surrounded by Russia along with Japan to its east. China needs some form of aquedate naval protection, and having a navy half of both Japan and Russia guanatrees an easy defeat of the Chinese Navy, which would open up Chinese shores to invasion.

China will construct 10 battleships to match Germany, Russia, and Japan's 10 battleships solely for defensive reasons. Other than this issue, China is prepared to adhere to the Washington Treaty."

The US representative shakes his head. "That is going to cause problems... however, if Japan is willing to accept that, its agreeable.The US is curious though, aren't Japan and China allied, and as such, why should China view Japan as a threat?"

Later on, in private, desperate to save a treaty that has almost been won, the US representative reminds Japan of the discussions planned for next year and their value. And plans discussed.

ooc
historically, by the way, the Naval Attaches that are part of the Diplomatic staff in each nation were empowered by the Treaty to inspect warships in service and under construction to ensure compliance with the treaty. Just thought I would mention it. It would definitely be written into the language of this one.

Due to the Washington Treaty going through France has ceased construction of the Normandie class battleship and will be converting the single keel they have laid for it into an aircraft carrier. All Courbet classes will be up-gunned to 13-inch guns instead of the twelve they are now carrying.

The US representative shakes his head. "That is going to cause problems... however, if Japan is willing to accept that, its agreeable.The US is curious though, aren't Japan and China allied, and as such, why should China view Japan as a threat?"

Later on, in private, desperate to save a treaty that has almost been won, the US representative reminds Japan of the discussions planned for next year and their value. And plans discussed.

The Chinese diplomat whispered discreetly to the USA's representative, as the Russians and Germans have already departed.

"China is not overly concerned about Japan. We are mainly worried about Russia and the communists. What if they seek to bombard Chinese port cities with their 10 battleships? What then?

Therefore, China seeks equal battleship amounts as Russia. We cannot be viewed as a nation with a weak navy, lest it invite other nations to bomb major Chinese coastal cities such as Shanghai and Tienstin.

If you have any alternatives to prevent such an eventuality from occuring, please do share it with China."

The Chinese diplomat whispered discreetly to the USA's representative, as the Russians and Germans have already departed.

"China is not overly concerned about Japan. We are mainly worried about Russia and the communists. What if they seek to bombard Chinese port cities with their 10 battleships? What then?

Therefore, China seeks equal battleship amounts as Russia. We cannot be viewed as a nation with a weak navy, lest it invite other nations to bomb major Chinese coastal cities such as Shanghai and Tienstin.

If you have any alternatives to prevent such an eventuality from occuring, please do share it with China."

the main thing that prevents that from occuring is that the Russians have to provide warships to guard not only their home waters in the Baltic Sea near their capital, but also the Black Sea facing the Turks, and finally warships to guard their Pacific coast. They simply will have to divide their fleet to defend at least their Black Sea bases vs the 4 Turkish battleships which means at most they can concentrate only a portion of their fleet against you. That was why they were given 10. The Germans would have to steam across the world to get to you, and bring along a large fleet of oilers to do so, plus their escorts. A very expensive effort, and according to the defense treaty you have with the US and Japan going back nearly 18 years, one likely to bring friends in against them.

We urge you to sign the treaty as it is given, to promote the cause of peace, and to prevent its failure.

Lu Hong sat back and pondered what the US representative stated. He closed his eyes for several minutes, weighing in his options as the fate of China's diplomatic relations were at stake. He nodded to himself as he opened his eyes, locking them with the US representative.

"Very well, in light of this new perspective that you have been so kind to provide, I have decided that it may be in China's interests to sign this treaty.

However, should war erupt aganist China, we may need to quickly increase our naval assets, as the only 'local' ally we have would be Japan. Your Navy would have to sail roughly the same distance as the Germans, as the Pacific is a pretty enormous ocean. Would this be an acceptable compromise?"

The Colombian government has not signed it yet, and is delaying the process considerably, while they are in "thought".

In the meantime, many keels are being laid down, dozens. This provides the excuse that they were under construction before the agreement. F-Class Submarines are being purchased from Italy to further avoid any problems.

The Calico Class Heavy Cruiser mounted 11.5" guns, however Colombia will develop a turret system that is easily interchangable with the 11.5" guns should they ever be needed.

When these issues are completed (not the ships themselves) Colombia will sign.

In the meantime, many keels are being laid down, dozens. This provides the excuse that they were under construction before the agreement. F-Class Submarines are being purchased from Italy to further avoid any problems.


OOC: I am curious as to how Colombia will fund these "dozens of keels" and where the immediate material for them will come from? Perhaps money will be diverted from domestic matters (though this won't make the citizens happy) but where will you source all of the sheet steel and steel beams needed for these keels?

GB: Can we use surplus vessels as training vessels? It would save me the hassle of having to dispose of them and whatever and may help to increase the caliber of my crews.

GB: Can we use surplus vessels as training vessels? It would save me the hassle of having to dispose of them and whatever and may help to increase the caliber of my crews.

ooc
only if their main and secondary gun turrets are removed, that is considered a demilitarized ship for this purpose. The British historically scrapped a bunch to reuse the steel, made some receiving ships, and used some as targets. It would be an excellent time for you to find out for example that the flash protection on your ships is inadequate (to put it mildly). The US and Japan already found out the hard way through accidents. The US nearly lost a predreadnought in harbor, plus the Maine in 1898 that way, while the Japanese lost one in 1918 when it blew up in harbor (a Satsuma class).

OOC: Righto then will begin scrapping some and using the rest as targets for my newer ships. Just how bad was the flash protection on my ships at this time? Could you give me a vague idea of how much it'd cost to refit all my ships with flash protection on all their magazines?

Thanks for letting me know anyway, consider the fact discovered by the British after we fore a few rounds into some of the old battleships!

OOC: Righto then will begin scrapping some and using the rest as targets for my newer ships. Just how bad was the flash protection on my ships at this time? Could you give me a vague idea of how much it'd cost to refit all my ships with flash protection on all their magazines?

Thanks for letting me know anyway, consider the fact discovered by the British after we fore a few rounds into some of the old battleships!

read about what happened to British battlecruisers at Jutland, and why it didn't happen to German battlecruisers

The US representative shakes his head. "That is going to cause problems... however, if Japan is willing to accept that, its agreeable.The US is curious though, aren't Japan and China allied, and as such, why should China view Japan as a threat?"

Later on, in private, desperate to save a treaty that has almost been won, the US representative reminds Japan of the discussions planned for next year and their value. And plans discussed.


The Japanese Represenitive shakes his head.
"Japan sees no need for China to have 10 Dreadnoughts, they have no island colonies and thier shores can be protected by Shore Batteries, Torpedo Boats and Aircraft." The only need for a Battleship is not to defend but to Project power.

The Japanese Represenitive shakes his head.
"Japan sees no need for China to have 10 Dreadnoughts, they have no island colonies and thier shores can be protected by Shore Batteries, Torpedo Boats and Aircraft." The only need for a Battleship is not to defend but to Project power.

The French Diplomat stirs, "In that case," he replies, "Why do you have need of battleships? All you have to defend are your home islands."

The French Diplomat stirs, "In that case," he replies, "Why do you have need of battleships? All you have to defend are your home islands."

OOC:
Defending a coast and an island chain is something different.
You can always bring reinforcements overland from somewhere else, especially in a country as large as china.

I have to come across waters to bring reinforcements and therefore I need protect lines of Communication over water while China does not.

Yes, My home islands, PLUS
Hainan Dao
Formosa
Sakhalin
Kuril Islands
Marcus Island

Last time I checked that is an empire.

ooc: Im pretty much scrapping my entire navy... thats where the keels are comin from.

Italy signs the treaty, as it is apparant that all the Great Powers are on board. Work will be stopped on all the Regina Elena carriers if they exceed the carrier tonnage limit. The maximum number of those that can be built without exceeding the treaty limits will be built, but all those above the limits are now targets.

IC: The Worker's Republic is curious to know the status of Dominions in this matter? Are they restricted to what the Mother Country has? Or are they as soverign countries?

Parthini']IC: The Worker's Republic is curious to know the status of Dominions in this matter? Are they restricted to what the Mother Country has? Or are they as soverign countries?

the Dominions... Australia, New Zealand, India and Canada, are considered the Royal Navy for the purposes of this treaty. That means their battleships, carriers and submarines count against tonnage limits, and their cruisers are required to be 10,000 tons or smaller and have 8 inch guns or less.

What I meant was can they also build their own subs and Battleships or if they built one would it count against the British Navy?

Parthini']What I meant was can they also build their own subs and Battleships or if they built one would it count against the British Navy?

it counts against the British Navy

The United States officially notifies the signatories of the Washington Naval Treaty that effective June 1, 1925, the US is withdrawing from the Treaty and will no longer be bound by it.

In Congress, this is initially met with misgivings but those are tempered by the growing awareness that France can no longer be counted as a firm ally, the Europeans are once again meddling in the Western Hemisphere, this time in Brazil, and advances in naval technology that make it a desirable to build newer, faster battleships and cruisers.

Along with the knowledge that the US and Britian can build much larger navies than anyone else can afford.

ooc: GB, chatzy?

ooc: GB, chatzy?

can't do that until after 8 tonight (Pacific Time)

The United States officially notifies the signatories of the Washington Naval Treaty that effective June 1, 1925, the US is withdrawing from the Treaty and will no longer be bound by it.

In Congress, this is initially met with misgivings but those are tempered by the growing awareness that France can no longer be counted as a firm ally, the Europeans are once again meddling in the Western Hemisphere, this time in Brazil, and advances in naval technology that make it a desirable to build newer, faster battleships and cruisers.

Along with the knowledge that the US and Britian can build much larger navies than anyone else can afford.

Comminque to the International Community
From: Greater China

The withdrawal of the United States from the Washington Naval treaty does not reflect well on them. After all, it was they who established the treaty in the first place under the Roosevelt administration. Once a treaty's founder withdraws from the treaty itself, it can only mean the death knell of the treaty. We are certain that other nations shall follow suit by withdrawing or tearing up this treaty.

China strongly encourages and recommends that the United States return its signatory back to the Washington Treaty, lest it lead to another arms race and another world war. This time, it will be the fault of the United States for starting another arms race and eventual world war, with the apparent dissolution of this treaty due to the fact that this treaty was created by the United States.

If the United States still wishes to withdraw from this treaty, and destroy it in the process of doing so, then China will have no choice but to withdraw as well, so that it will be able to defend itself aganist the powers that choose to disregard or withdraw from the treaty.

Good Day,
~Emperor Guozu

The United States officially notifies the signatories of the Washington Naval Treaty that effective June 1, 1925, the US is withdrawing from the Treaty and will no longer be bound by it.

In Congress, this is initially met with misgivings but those are tempered by the growing awareness that France can no longer be counted as a firm ally, the Europeans are once again meddling in the Western Hemisphere, this time in Brazil, and advances in naval technology that make it a desirable to build newer, faster battleships and cruisers.

Along with the knowledge that the US and Britian can build much larger navies than anyone else can afford.
?!

Well, that's certainly News . . .

Moscow will make inquiries through backchannels whether Washington is open instead to renegotiation of the Treaty. Perhaps including additional provisions concerning Maritime Law and Territory. After all, mutual understanding is a firmer basis for peace than bellicosity . . .

ooc
actually the treaty was signed and negoitated during the Hughes Administration (Republicans) and President Cox and his Vice President Franklin Roosevelt are Democrats

IC
In light of the recent deployment of the bulk of the Russian Navy to the Pacific, where it is dangerously close to an important American ally, and the increasing involvement of German combat forces in Brazil, the United States feels it has no choice but to increase the size of its navy to a level needed to ensure the defense of its interests.

ooc
by the way, the US Navy has fighters and torpedo planes too (chuckle)

In light of the recent deployment of the bulk of the Russian Navy to the Pacific, where it is dangerously close to an important American ally, and the increasing involvement of German combat forces in Brazil, the United States feels it has no choice but to increase the size of its navy to a level needed to ensure the defense of its interests.

Comminque to the International Community and the United States
From: Greater China

We would like to point out the chain of events leading to this situation.

First, Japan embarks on a massive military build-up and modernization effort with the various requests for foreign weapons, naval vessels, aircraft, and the like.

Second, Japan withdraws from the Sino-Japanese mutual defense and support alliance. Japan does so, despite the fact that China has taken no hostile actions aganist Japan, nor made any attempt to undermine the alliance.

Third, owing to these two actions, Russia felt the need to fortify Siberia and Vladivotosk, two prime targets for an Japanse invasion of Russia should it occur. Russia has reason to do this, as it is not exactly a secret that Japan has long desired Manchuria and Siberia.

Is is only natural that China and Russia should grow apphrensive of Japan, owing to its, shall we say, aggressive actions. If Japan truly felt threatened, breaking an alliance with China wasn't the way to go. China would never have betrayed the alliance. Japan should have discussed a Non-Aggression Pact with Russia. Should Japan have not broken the alliance with China, and actively seeked a Non-Aggression Pact with Russia, then it would have had no need to aggressively militarize, nor fear hostile actions from Russia or China.

China is still committed to any alliance or agreement with Japan or other national powers. We do not betray alliances, withdraw from alliances, or break alliances as we value peace and stability. What message does it send if a nation allies or creates a treaty, such as with Japan and the United States, then they break or withdraws from the alliance or treaty?

Ponder on that.

Good Day,
~Emperor Guozu

Comminque to the International Community and the United States
From: Greater China snip [/I]

In a press conference, a spokesman from the White House remarked on the Chinese statements. "Interesting that China should complain of aggressive actions. China after all annexed Laos and Cambodia, and threatened war with France to do so. They are complaining about Russia having to fortify its borders when it was Russia that led the campaign that produced 3 years of bloody warfare in Europe, and the destruction of Austria Hungary. Russia is allied with Germany, which has on numerous occasions attempted to seize territory in our own hemisphere.

Japan has not resorted to war one time this century so far. The United States has only fought two conflicts since 1900. In both occasions, in the Philippines and in Venezuela, we ended the violence and in the Philippines case they will gain their independence in 1945, while Venezuela has already had its independence restored. When does China plan to give back Mongolia, Laos and Cambodia their independence?

Japan is right to be concerned about China and Russia. Their record this century is of expansionism and an easy willingness to use military force. While Japan and the United States have attempted negotiation until it became clear the diplomacy would not work.

The Socialist record this century has not been good. Bloody revolution in Germany and Russia, ruthless repression in Brazil and France, expansionism everywhere. Although China isn't Socialist, it seems to work in league with them.

What choice to we have. The United States did not sign away its right to self defense when it signed the Washington Naval Treaty. The situation in the world forces us to put it aside to build up our defenses."

Comminque to the International Community
From: Greater China

China would like to make several points perfectly clear.

First, the alliance between China and Japan was agreed upon in which China shall expand on mainland Asia, and Japan shall expand in the Ocean. China shall not interfere with Japanese affairs in the Pacific, while Japan was not to interfere with Chinese affairs on mainland Asia. We were to respect each other's sovereignty. In addition, there were to be boosts in Japanese and Chinese trade, exchanges, and support of each other. Should Japan be invaded, China would lend assistance. Should China be invaded, Japan would lend assistance.

In short, China and Japan signed a full pact, despite our differences in the past. China had every intention of honoring the pact, and had no hostile intentions or any aggressive actions aganist Japan.

Second, Mongolia is fully Chinese as China itself. Over 15 million Chinese citizens are living in Mongolia, as opposed to a mere 1 million native Mongolians. Therefore, Mongolia has an overwhelming Chinese majority. Cambodia and Laos were sold to China by France in full exchange for China not pursuring French Vietnam. France and China have grew closer as we have managed to overcome our initial disagreements and discontent with each other. This is the mark of true peace- nations overcoming their dislikes and becoming closer friends.

Third, the same situation regarding Cambodia and Laos can be applied to the United States annexation of Cuba, the Alaskan territory, and the Hawaiian territory. These two islands have native populations- The Cubans, Eskimos, and Hawaiian-Polynesians, respectively. The United States considers Cuba, Hawaii, and Alaska as part of the United States just as China considers Cambodia and Laos as parts of China. The principle remains the same.

Fourth, as for China's relations with the socialists. They have been helping China develop remarkably well. For instance, the Union has offered to drastically improve trade with China by construction of the Trans-Siberian railroad. Another instance is Germany building Zeppelins for Chinese commercial use. China is cultivating friends, a commodity that is becoming more and more scarce these days. What is wrong with being friends with the Warsaw Pact members and the London Treaty Alliance members? One cannot have too many friends.

In closing, China wishes that the United States reconsider its decision to withdraw from the Washington Naval Treaty. The actions of the United States by withdrawing from the treaty, may very well spark another arms race that is counter-productive to the global peace that the world seemed ready to strive for after the horrors of the Great War. Are the people of the United States so eager to instigate a Second Great War through its actions, and bring suffering to millions or perhaps even a billion people?

Good Day.
~Emperor Guozu

The Chinese statements do not impress American newspaper readers much when the story is reported, and it is pointed out that Cuba is an independent nation that joined the Pan American Treaty, while Puerto Rico chose to remain a US territory by plebisite. Nor are Americans much impressed by comments regarding Alaska or Hawaii, as it is well known those lands were populated by savages (ooc world view of the time) prior the the US arriving to civilize them.

For that matter, some newspapers report on how Mongolia was trying to gain its independence until China ruthlessly settled 15 million people there, completely displacing the poor Mongolians. The Cox Administration certainly makes an effort to mention it.

A short story written by Jack London also appears in several West Coast papers for a while as well.


http://www.readbookonline.net/readOnLine/2154

An Open Message to the United State Government

President Cox,

As a long-standing friend and ally of the United States of America, France expresses shock and dismay at your withdrawal from the Washington Treaty. If one can simply pull out from any treaty they wish then civilization would have collapsed eons ago.

France will continue to honor the treaty, even if Washington will not. France has not oppressed anyone. It is a free country, we are proud to say. We hope this does not portend a military build-up in preperation for war.

France remains your friend.

Yours,

Leon Blum, Prime Minister

Comminque from Greater China:

Very well. If the Americans consider Hawaii and Alaska as uncivilized lands inhabited by "savages", then we shall use the same excuse regarding Cambodia and Laos. We are bringing Chinese civilization to the poor and pre-historic populaces of Cambodia, Laos, and even Mongolia. Without Chinese aid, control, and efforts, those nations may very well take no less than a century or two before they can even approach the Westerner standards of life. The same could be said for the Eskimos in Alaska, and the Polynesians in Hawaii.

Good Day
~Emperor Guozu

After debate and consideration Parliament decides that France will withdraw from the treaty as well.

Ottoman offically statement

If the United States government withdraws from this treaty and refuses to enact a treaty of its own making. We will not fall behind , while America builds up its forces, the Ottoman Empire will withdraw from this treaty,also.

ooc
actually the treaty was signed and negoitated during the Hughes Administration (Republicans) and President Cox and his Vice President Franklin Roosevelt are Democrats

IC
In light of the recent deployment of the bulk of the Russian Navy to the Pacific, where it is dangerously close to an important American ally, and the increasing involvement of German combat forces in Brazil, the United States feels it has no choice but to increase the size of its navy to a level needed to ensure the defense of its interests.

ooc
by the way, the US Navy has fighters and torpedo planes too (chuckle)

So Washington's "interests" include Japanese threats to the integrity of Siberia and Manchuria and the protection of reactionary murderers of women and children in the Amazon. How interesting. So be it, then. Mr. Cox has shown his true colors to the World.

The Union rejects the so-called "Washington Conference," as well.

Open Italian Announcement to the World

Although Italy is formally withdrawing from the Washington Treaty, Italy still hopes the torch of peace burns bright in all (former) treaty nations. (OOC: And if that wasn't bullshit, I have no clue what is ;) ) Considering that, Italy will not expand its navy as other nations have. We feel our navy is sufficient for the defense of Italy and its overseas territory.

OOC:

Italy won't really be doing much expanding, and it historically didn't expand until the 1930s. However, there is no Mussolini, and Il Duce sure did like his ships. So much so that he screwed over the army to the point where he couldn't invade Greece. Italy will build two new carriers, and scrap its old pre-dread conversion carrier. Any info on carriers at this time is appreciated.

OOC: Shucks. Other than the Sub limit, I rather liked it. Oh well.

IC: The Worker's Republic also withdraws. In unrelated news, another two hundred more U-Boats are planned for construction and and 50 more are planned to set sail by the end of the month, putting the total at nearly 250 Left Hand Submarines.

Parthini']OOC: Shucks. Other than the Sub limit, I rather liked it. Oh well.

IC: The Worker's Republic also withdraws. In unrelated news, another two hundred more U-Boats are planned for construction and and 50 more are planned to set sail by the end of the month, putting the total at nearly 250 Left Hand Submarines.

OOC
War moderator
Errr... NOT so fast. You have not geared up production to the point were producing more than 2 or 3 submarines a month is possible. It also takes at least a year to train the crew for a submarine, and you don't have anywhere like those numbers in the pipeline either. In a year you can get up to 5 submarines a month, with their crews, and in three years you can reach World War II levels of production (10 boats a month).

This will also be expensive... here is how much a World War II era submarine costs .. your best boats will be at the low end of this, so figure $1 million each boat

Type II- 52 boats at $1.03 million.

Type VII- 705 boats at $2.25 million.

Type IX- 194 boats at $ 3.2 million.

Type XB- 8 boats at $ 3.175 million.

Type XIV- 10 boats at $ 3.51 million.

Type XXI- 123 boats at $ 2.875 million.

Type XXIII- 59 boats at $1.03 million.

and thats per boat
source
http://www.chinfo.navy.mil/navpalib/ships/submarines/centennial/wwii-campaigns.html

That kind of production was during the height of World War II, under Total Mobilization conditions, and with U-Boats having a priority higher than the Wehrmacht.

It also costs roughly the same price to train the crew as it does to build the boat. A fleet of 1000 submarines is going to bankrupt you damn quick in peacetime, or force you to to go wartime mobilization, which will wreck your economy long term.

OOC: Hehe... :headbang: The extra 50 was me being honest and that I had 50 Uboats "unfinished" and "about to be dismantled", but never got around. Now, without the Treaty, they magically reappeared :D

But I see your point. I wasn't sure how much they cost, so yeah... Build like 2 a month for a while. Gotta keep up :p

Japan wishes to announce that to protect itself and its shores it will withdraw from the washington naval treaty


OOC:I'm going to expand but not that much

Britain follows the world's lead and officially removes it's signature from the Washington Treaty. An increase in ship production is announced and the following ships are planned for the next 3-5 years:

Hood Class Battlecruisers: (NB, new version of the class restarting production)

Howe (not built) RENAMED HMS Cornwallis
Rodney (not built) RENAMED HMS Beresford
Anson (not built) RENAMED HMS Napier

5 New Heavy Cruisers (a prelude to the 1928 County Class)

2 Emerald class Light Cruisers (production brought forwards)

11 A class destroyers (production brought forwards)

2 40 R class submarines (old model from 1919 put back into production)

Colombia must withdraw from this treaty if it is to remain able to defend itself in this world. The original armaments of the Cruisers will be replaced, but no major expansion will occur. Maybe a few submarines an additional escort carrier.

Further to previous naval expansion, Britain lays keels for 5 new aircraft carriers. They will be of a similar type to the existing HMS Hermes they are to be known as HMS Poseidon, HMS Ares, HMS Athena, HMS Hephaestus and HMS Apollo. This class will now be know as the Olympian class with plans for a further 6 vessels of teh same class will also be drawn up for future production.