NationStates Jolt Archive

In 1917, President Hughes of the United States invites the nations of the world to Washington to discuss a treaty limiting the size of navies in order to prevent an arms race that might lead to war.

Special attention is paid to Japan, British Empire, Germany, France, Italy, Austrian Empire, and Russia.

Officially, the invitation is peacefully worded and in the spirit of peace.

Unofficially, intelligence offiers report to their respective governments that the Americans could easily build a navy bigger then just about everyone else put together should they choose except for the British, even bigger then the Royal Navy should it choose to compete with the British.

Such a race would bankrupt everyone else long before the Americans went broke.

US proposal

Size limitations
Battleships are defined as any warship carrying guns larger then 8 inches, with a maximum size of 35,000 tons and maximum size gun of 16 inches.

Each Navy however would be allowed to keep up to 4 battleships that do not exceed 41,000 tons or build up to 4.

Aircraft carriers cannot exceed 33,000 tons and cannot carry weapons larger then 8 inches.

Cruisers cannot exceed 10,000 tons and cannot carry weapons larger then 8 inches. In addition, a cruiser is any warship with guns greater then 5.1 inches and less then 8 inches that is not an aircraft carrier.

Destroyers cannot exceed 4,000 tons.

Numerical limitations
USA – 20 battleships, 35 cruisers, 100 submarines, 10 carriers
British Empire - 20 battleships, 35 cruisers, 100 submarines, 10 carriers
Japanese Empire – 15 battleships, 25 cruisers, 100 submarines, 8 carriers
German Empire – 15 battleships, 25 cruisers, 100 submarines, 8 carriers
Russian Empire – 10 battleships, 15 cruisers, 100 submarines, 4 carriers
French Empire – 10 battleships, 15 cruisers, 100 submarines, 4 carriers
Italian Empire – 10 battleships, 15 cruisers, 100 submarines, 4 carriers
Austrian Empire – 10 battleships, 15 cruisers, 100 submarines, 4 carriers
Netherlands Empire - 6 battleships, 8 cruisers, 60 submarines, 2 carriers
All other navies limited to 4 battleships, 8 cruisers, 40 submarines, 2 carriers

Cruisers can be substituted for battleships or carriers (2 cruisers = 1 battleship or carrier for this purpose)

Note that British Empire includes Canada, Australia, New Zealand, South Africa

Special provisions:
Germany cannot construct fortifications or naval yards in the Pacific Ocean

Japan cannot construct bases or fortifications on German territory in Pacific Ocean

Russia cannot have more then 6 battleships in the Baltic Sea or Pacific Ocean

The United States cannot construct fortifications or naval yards west of the International Dateline except for the Philippines (and only those already constructed)

British Empire cannot construct fortifications in the Pacific Ocean except for in Australia, New Zealand and Singapore

No nation may station its warships at the naval base or yard of another nation during peacetime or use their facilities.

A moratorium on the construction of battleships for 10 years beginning 1920.

Treaty to be re discussed in 1930.

The Danish representative arrives to the table and greets the appropriate American representatives. Being handed the current proposal a quick read the Danish representatives quietly ask if they would be able to have the option available of having 60 submarines instead of the 40 slated on the proposal

OOC: What;s the status of Destroyers and are Cruisers is anything labeled cruiser in 4-5 tech? Also if I start constructing a some BC's or whatever that are finished at the end of 1920 would that contravene this document?

One more thing "Russia cannot have more then 6 battleships in the Baltic Sea or Pacific Ocean " means that in the Baltic that Russia cannot have more than 6 battleships and in the pacific that Russia cannot have more that 6 or is that the combined Baltic-pacfic fleet that cannot be over 6?

Britain feels that it should have more Cruisers and Carriers because of the extensive Empire it has to maintain. Where other nations merely have to patrol one Ocean, Britain has to patrol three.

The Danish representative arrives to the table and greets the appropriate American representatives. Being handed the current proposal a quick read the Danish representatives quietly ask if they would be able to have the option available of having 60 submarines instead of the 40 slated on the proposal

OOC: What;s the status of Destroyers and are Cruisers is anything labeled cruiser in 4-5 tech? Also if I start constructing a some BC's or whatever that are finished at the end of 1920 would that contravene this document?

One more thing "Russia cannot have more then 6 battleships in the Baltic Sea or Pacific Ocean " means that in the Baltic that Russia cannot have more than 6 battleships and in the pacific that Russia cannot have more that 6 or is that the combined Baltic-pacfic fleet that cannot be over 6?

Russians can have up to 10 battleships, of which no more then 6 can be either in the Baltic Sea or Pacific Ocean.. in other words, can't have all 10 in the Baltic or Pacific

note that destroyers are not included

If you have more then 5 battleship sized warships, then yes, that would be in excess of treaty requirements.

Addendum to the Treaty would be a cruiser is any warship armed with guns greater then 5.1 inches but less then 8.1 inches

Siam announces that it is willing to sign the treaty as proposed.

Parthini;12114433']Britain feels that it should have more Cruisers and Carriers because of the extensive Empire it has to maintain. Where other nations merely have to patrol one Ocean, Britain has to patrol three.

The US is willing to raise the limit on British cruisers by 10 ships, if the British promise not to build fortifications in the Caribbean. The US is sticking however to the 10 carrier limit

Britain accepts the proposal (as long as the US doesn't make any plans to annex the Caribbean :p)

OOC: Each Navy however would be allowed to keep up to 4 battleships that do not exceed 41,000 tons or build up to 4.

Does this mean that we would be able to get an additional 4 Battleships?

Also what of Naval Reserve and Mothballed ships?

Parthini;12114578']OOC: Each Navy however would be allowed to keep up to 4 battleships that do not exceed 41,000 tons or build up to 4.

Does this mean that we would be able to get an additional 4 Battleships?

Also what of Naval Reserve and Mothballed ships?

examples of a 41,000 ton battleship
HMS Hood
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HMS_Hood_%2851%29

(ooc: the British get an exclusion for water in boilers, which adds an addition 4,000 tons, bringing the ship from 41,000 to 45,000 tons listed in the article)
its a special concession to the British only, as they have a world wide empire

although the US is willing to consider it for Germany as well if the US gets it also


the 4 battleships listed count against your 20 limit

note that the specifications of the treaty do count naval reserve and mothballed ships against the limit

The Austrian Delegation arrives but waits and watches other nations reponses before commenting themselves.

The Turkish Government is willing to sign the naval treaty, yet the Turkish Navy ask for a higher ratio for Cruisers(say about 10) in the interest of defending the key sea lanes in the Black Seas, Argean, and Eastern Med.

The Third Republic agrees in full with the spirit of the American proposal, but cannot agree with the letter.

France proposes that its limitations on ship numbers be revised to reflect the strategic and security needs of the French Republic and French Colonial Empire:

France be allowed to maintain 15 battleships, 30 cruisers, 100 submarines, and 8 carriers. France has two coasts (Atlantic and Mediterranean), a large colonial empire with a vast coastline (more coastline than the German colonial empire, for example), and protectorates in the Middle East and Asia. Such an expanse of coastal territory necessitates that France have a sufficient naval force to protect said holdings.

The French point out, through private channels, to the Americans and British that France is not trying to usurp Anglo-Saxon naval dominance; rather, France is insuring that the events of the Great War cannot be repeated, with Germany blockading the French coast and Japanese warships attacking European possessions in the Atlantic Ocean. France also asks the two powers to support a clause allowing France to construct more ships should Italy cancel its alliance with France, as that would put a potentially hostile navy between France and its other territories in the Mediterranean.

Also privately, the French politely inform the Americans that France has no intentions of competing in naval terms with the United States, and thus is not concerned at all that Washington can construct a much larger navy than Paris.

OOC Edit:
There is a 10-year moratorium on battleship construction starting in 1920. Does that mean no ships can be built during that decade, or just no new ships (i.e. if I start a battleship in 1919, can I finish it?)?

Siam, annoyed by the many requests for larger fleets, sarcastically suggests that Greece be allowed to build up to 10 battleships as it potentially faces Austrian, Albanian, and Bulgarian fleets, and has a good deal of coastline to defend as well.

OOC Edit:
There is a 10-year moratorium on battleship construction starting in 1920. Does that mean no ships can be built during that decade, or just no new ships (i.e. if I start a battleship in 1919, can I finish it?)?

OOC
the moratorium as written means no new warships built, which is vague, so the Americans are willing to accept no more battleships started after 1920, allowing those already under construction in 1919 to be completed.

IC
The Americans aren't happy with the French proposal, but wait to see what the Germans and Japanese say, as well as the Italians and Austrians

However, it is pointed out that if the Russians are allowed 6 battleships in the Baltic, then the Germans would have to have 6 to watch the, leaving the Germans with only 9 battleships available elsewhere... a figure inferior to the proposed French fleet limit.

The Americans aren't happy with the French proposal, but wait to see what the Germans and Japanese say, as well as the Italians and Austrians

However, it is pointed out that if the Russians are allowed 6 battleships in the Baltic, then the Germans would have to have 6 to watch the, leaving the Germans with only 9 battleships available elsewhere... a figure inferior to the proposed French fleet limit.

The French remind the Americans that France must split its fleet between the Atlantic and Mediterranean, leaving the Germans with superior naval strength in the North Atlantic, unless the French kept all but one battleship in the Atlantic. The idea of leaving an area as vital to French security as the Mediterranean with only a single battleship is unacceptable to the French Republic.

In addition France must concern itself with the Austro-Hungarian navy, as the Imperium is being allowed a large fleet despite its having very little coastline and no overseas holdings. And of course, there remains a possibility of Japanese ships entering the Atlantic again in a future war...

The Dutch representative agrees with all of the US proposals, except that the Netherlands is limited to only four battleships. The Dutch representatives asks if the limit could be put to six for the Netherlands. This ships would help protect the colonies spread all over the world. Also a threat of a Asian power that might invade or try to invade the Dutch East Indies.

Britain adds one last request. The 4 major Dominions (Ireland, South Africa, Australia, Canada) all have large coastlines as well as some self-reliance. Before now, each one has had at least one Capital ship and several Crusiers to assist in patrolling British waters. However, under this treaty, they would not be allowed any navy at all without compromising the defense of the Homelands. Thus, Britain requests that each British dominion (Ireland, SA, Canada, Australia) be allowed to have one Battleship (DN or BC, not SDN or BC2) and 2 Crusiers for self-protection.

examples of a 41,000 ton battleship
HMS Hood
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HMS_Hood_%2851%29

(ooc: the British get an exclusion for water in boilers, which adds an addition 4,000 tons, bringing the ship from 41,000 to 45,000 tons listed in the article)
its a special concession to the British only, as they have a world wide empire

although the US is willing to consider it for Germany as well if the US gets it also



Germany is willing to accept America getting it if Germany does.

Germany does request that we be allowed to build 30 cruisers instead of 25 poitns out to the fact that we do have a large colonial empire that spans every major ocean(Indian, Atlantic, Pacific). It is also pointed out that these extra cruisers would not make a difference in the event of a major war.

As far as the other ratio's Germany is extremely pleased with them. Germany does make it well known that it will not accept a treaty that allows France and Russia any more Battleships than currently allowed unless Germany is allowed to increase proportionally. Germany will not allow itself to be swamped by its neighbors, people who already surround Germany.

Germany does make it well known that it will not accept a treaty that allows France and Russia any more Battleships than currently allowed unless Germany is allowed to increase proportionally. Germany will not allow itself to be swamped by its neighbors, people who already surround Germany.

France opposes Germany getting more battleships or cruisers. France emphasizes that it sought more battleships and cruisers in order to better defend its territories; it asked for an equal number of battleships as Germany, even though it must split its ships between two areas. France also notes that Germany used its cruisers quite effectively during the last war to raid commerce and ships laden with foodstuffs bound for war-ravaged areas, something that France does not wish to see happen again.

Japan requests that its number of carriers be increased to 9, as they have a large area to cover (including partialy watching over Germany's Pacific territories). Japan also asks for 5 extra cruisers, to protect their interests in the vast Pacific Ocean (again partially watching their alies possessions as well)

Japan voices support for Germany's proposal, and does not wish to see France or Russia gain anymore Battleships if Germany doesn't

EDIT- what exaactly constitutes fortifications? Is it just a fort, or are coastal defense units not allowed either?

The Republic of China signs the Washington Naval Treaty, stating that it is in their best interest.

Britain finds it unacceptable that Germany recieve more cruisers, since Germany's Pacific and Indian colonial Empire consists of several hundred tiny, practically useless islands with little economic value.

The British delegate was taken aside by the German. After several minutes of discussion, Britain has agreed to retract its statements regarding the increase of German Cruisers by 5, simply refraining from putting its input in.

The Austrian delegation quietly lets it be known that its chances of signing the treaty will be significantly reduced if France is allowed more than the originally proposed amount of ships.

Considering the importance of this treaty, Russia sends it's foriegn minister, the accomplished Baron Rosen, to negotiate.

Rosen indicates that his government will accept nothing less then naval parity with both Japan and Germany as both of those countries encircle Russia. This meaning that Russia be allowed to construct the same number of battleships, cruisers, etc as Germany. After all, a lack of naval armaments led to a serious blockade on Russia during the last war.

It is also pointed out that Russia most cover four areas of importance: the Arctic Ocean, around Murmansk, the Baltic Sea and it's capital, Petrograd, the Pacific and Vladivistok and finally, the Black Sea and the vital port of Sevastapol.

He also indicates the wishes of his government that Russia be able to have more then six battleships in the Baltic, as it guards access to the very capital of the Russian Empire. To propose that Russia be unable to guard it's own capital with what force is deemed neccessary is considered absurd. The number of ships (six) seems arbitrary.

A six ship limit in the Pacific would also be ludicrious, as the massive numerical superiority of the Japanese fleet would simply make them floating targets.

The Black Sea Fleet itself is certainly no threat, as the Turks have a policy of not allowing warships through the straits.

The Germans and Japanese clearly wish to see France and Russia unable to respond to any naval threat from their nations.

As such, Russia requests that it's number of battleships allowed by increased to fifteen, and that the rest of it's numbers follow suit.

If this is unacceptable, he proposes that Germany be brought down to be on par with the rest of Europe.

Behind the scenes he points out to the Americans that Russia is not interested in a naval race with the Americans (And would be insane to attempt one), but is merely seeking to effectively protect its people more effectively. The navy would be short range, used merely for protecting Russia's shores. After all, the Japanese and Germans attacked Russia without provocation during the last war, killing over four million Russians and using their naval superiority to illegeally blockade civilian goods, such as food and medicine. Russia must be prepared if they were ever to attempt such a thing again.

As he tells the American delegate, paraphrasing Ceasar, "It is not fat, prosperous fellows that worry us but those pale, hungry ones."

Both the Norwegian and Swedish delegations, attempting to stay in as close contact as possible with their respective home governments, have observed the treaty process so far without any interjections.

The Norwegians do, however, talk to the Americans alone regarding Scandinavian concersn over the limitations- Scandinavia has one of the largest coastlines in Europe, Norway alone having it coastline covered in fjords and Denmark having both the Jutland peninsula and Iceland and Greendland to defend. It would be a gross blow to the security of Scandinavia if naval limits as drastic as those the Americans have suggested are put into place by Scandinavia- surely the United States understands the plight of small, neutral nations surrounded by world powers with only their navies able to offer adequate defense and attempt to preserve a balance of power in the Baltic area.

In short, the United States is asked if it can come up with limits more fair to the security of Scandinavia (at least as viewed by the Scandinavians) in light of the precarious position the region has and naval-based defensive strategy the region requires.

The US government looks over the various points

1. It feels that since the Coalition would have 15 German battleships in the North Sea and at most, 10 Austrian battleships in the Adriatic facing 10 Italian battleships in the Adriatic and 10 French and potentially 10 Russian battleships in the North Sea (if Murmansk is a base) that if anything, there is a fair and equal balance in Europe under this proposal.

2. The US feels that since the Japanese can concentrate their entire fleet in one ocean, and the US is foregoing fortifying Guam and must divide its fleet between 2 oceans, the treaty in fact already favors Japan.

3. The US also feels that since the Scandinavian nations can potentially build 12 battleships (4 each for Denmark, Sweden, and Norway) plus possibly 4 more for Finland, if anything, it can actually have an advantage over Germany or Russia as is.

4. The US feels that the solution to the Dutch problem is an agreement by both Japan and the British Empire to pledge to defend the Dutch East Indies from each other.

5. The US feels that the RN has plenty of warships already, and doesn’t need more for the Dominions, especially since it can build all the destroyers it wants.

In short, the United States is against raising the limits on ships at this time, as it will make things more unstable instead of less unstable.

TAG for when im not drunk

After some consultation and a telegram or three from Petrograd, Baron Rosen announces that Russia will concede the six battleship limit in the Baltic, if the number of battleships they are allowed is raised to eleven or twelve.

"The Black Sea, although vital to Russia and in need of protection, is cut off from the rest of the world during war time, as it is the right of the Turkish people to refuse passage to war ships through the Dardenelles. Therefore, some of our naval strength would be locked in the Black Sea and helpless to intervene in any conflict. We request that the limit on our captial ships be raised by either one or two ships, on the condition that at least one or two always be assigned to the Black Sea."

Behind closed doors, the Russian delegation urges that British to either reconsider their support for Germany’s cruisers or support a similar increase in France’s crusiers.

The Empire of China agrees to sign the treaty on the condition that it is allowed fifteen cruisers and one hundred submarines.
It is reasoned that this is needed because the Empire is surrounded by hostile powers and rebels from many diections and would need a larger navy to protect it's coastline.

The SPanish delegate has been quiet, seeing the whole preceding. "Spain is curious if it may trade it's battleships for something else. Our current plans do not have 4 battleships in mind at all. (The two pre-dreanaught battleships don't count.) And would prefer a larger cruiser fleet as it's much more important to protecting the entrance to the Mediterranian, which is SPain's job do to our location. Therefore, Spain is curious if we may trade battleships for cruisesers. As we need many cruisers for the job, and less battleships than is written here. THe treaty doesn't face the needs of a country that needs ships designed for shallow waters.

We also do not need as many submarines, and would like to trade those for cruisers.

The US feels that the solution to the Dutch problem is an agreement by both Japan and the British Empire to pledge to defend the Dutch East Indies from each other.

The Dutch representative asks if that could be made special provision, so it can be made official or the Dutch demand to have atleast 6 battleships

The Italian delegate was quite red in the face at this point.

"And just who is going to pay for the 11 Cruisers that are above our 'limitations' that were just built? How can you possibly consider it fair that we just wasted tens of millions of dollars; maybe for the mighty United States thats nothing, but we cannot afford that kind of loss.. not now!"

The Italian delegate was quite red in the face at this point.

"And just who is going to pay for the 11 Cruisers that are above our 'limitations' that were just built? How can you possibly consider it fair that we just wasted tens of millions of dollars; maybe for the mighty United States thats nothing, but we cannot afford that kind of loss.. not now!"


The US indicates it would be willing to buy excess Italian cruisers in 1919, and would demilitarize them after purchase

The SPanish delegate has been quiet, seeing the whole preceding. "Spain is curious if it may trade it's battleships for something else. Our current plans do not have 4 battleships in mind at all. (The two pre-dreanaught battleships don't count.) And would prefer a larger cruiser fleet as it's much more important to protecting the entrance to the Mediterranian, which is SPain's job do to our location. Therefore, Spain is curious if we may trade battleships for cruisesers. As we need many cruisers for the job, and less battleships than is written here. THe treaty doesn't face the needs of a country that needs ships designed for shallow waters.

We also do not need as many submarines, and would like to trade those for cruisers.

The US is willing to accept Spanish offer to trade battleships for extra cruisers, even willing to let Spain get 2 cruisers for every battleship given up

The Dutch representative asks if that could be made special provision, so it can be made official or the Dutch demand to have atleast 6 battleships

The US indicates that if Japan and the British Empire will agree to that, the US is certainly in favor of that idea

The Empire of China agrees to sign the treaty on the condition that it is allowed fifteen cruisers and one hundred submarines.
It is reasoned that this is needed because the Empire is surrounded by hostile powers and rebels from many diections and would need a larger navy to protect it's coastline.

The Republic of China protests this development. To give the Empire a handout when the Republic was clearly going to abide by the rules--with NO handouts requested or demanded upon this conference--would only begin a regional naval arms race that would violate the spirit of ths treaty.

The Republic of China protests this development. To give the Empire a handout when the Republic was clearly going to abide by the rules--with NO handouts requested or demanded upon this conference--would only begin a regional naval arms race that would violate the spirit of ths treaty.

The Imperial emmisary to the conference retorts that no regional naval arms race would occur if the treaty is followed.
The Empire is simply asking, as is it's right, to be allowed a few more cruisers and subamrines to protect it's coastline from the japanese invaders and rebel pirates that surround it.

The Siamese delegate notes that of the two Chinas, Republican China has a greater reliance on the sea and a longer coastline, so if anything it should be allowed extra ships.

A Bulgarian Representative asks about Bulgarian Basing rights and the right to construct a naval yard in Salonika.

Agreed to the trade, though in truth Spain wonders where it fits in the scheme of things. Spain itself is sort of an engima. Not a major colonial power, it is also not a land locked country or tiny nation. (80% of the Spanish border is with water.) And Spain while not needing the sort of fleets Britain or Germany do with their empire. We have a need for more ships than say Belguim. Our enclaves make this neccesary. So instead, Spain makes this request for it's limitations.

2 Battleships, 10 Light Cruisers, 10 Heavy Cruisers, 20 Submarines, 1 Aircraft Carrier

This would allow for the Atlantic fleet to have enough battleships, and the Mediterranian fleet to have more than enough cruisers. This would fit the 2 Battleships trading for 4 Cruisers. And only have 8 more cruisers than the regular. But, we also trade an aircraft carrier for the cruisers. In truth Spain may not be a world power, but she is a local one especcially in relation to Morocco, as Spain controls the largest population of Moroccans.

The Imperial emmisary to the conference retorts that no regional naval arms race would occur if the treaty is followed.
The Empire is simply asking, as is it's right, to be allowed a few more cruisers and subamrines to protect it's coastline from the japanese invaders and rebel pirates that surround it.

The Republican emissary retorts in turn "We find the idea that a collection of uppercrust snobs with Russian money that call themselves an "Empire" should demand protection from their fellow Chinese laughable. Having said that, we have considered the Siamese point and have changed our minds. We request an equal allowance of cruisers and submarines, to fully assure our fellow Chinese no regional arms race erupts. I believe in this treaty as well, but I need assurances it will hold."

The Republican emissary retorts in turn that it finds the idea that a collection of uppercrust snobs with Russian money that call themselves an "Empire" should demand protection from their fellow Chinese laughable. Having said that, we have considered the Siamese point and have changed our minds. We request an equal allowance of cruisers and submarines, to fully assure our fellow Chinese no regional arms race erupts.

The Imperial delegate loses his temper, and yells at the republican to run away like the traitrous rebel dog he is (alluding to the KMT standing by while the Imperials fought the Japanese). He goes on to say that it is not the Empire's fault that the corrupt rebel government of Canton cannot see reason and rejoin the empire and instead rob and ruin the Chinese people they have unjustly subjugated.
He returns his attention to the the rest of the conference and cooly repeats his request citing that the empire is surrounded by anarchic rebels to the south and hostile Japanese to the north and east.

The Republican delegate smiles, quietly enjoying seeing his Imperial opponent squirm, and says, "Again, I repeat my request for a matching allowance of vessels, to ensure that all parts of the treaty are nice and tidy in regards to Asia."

Brazilian delegates are happy with the conference and think this is a great step towards preventing another Great War. However, they request that Washington *asks* Argentina and Chile to sign the treaty as well.

(Btw, do you think the South Americans could get away with calling their Battlecruisers "Battleships"? The U.S. is probably the only country that cares and it's allies with Argentina and Brazil anyways.)

Siam suggests that both Chinas simply return to the standard, as neither has a pressing need for more ships than any other power. (And in any case it's highly unlikely that either China would build up to that level.)

Rosen, although he sees Siam's point on the Chiense government's position, states that the Russian government supports the Imperial Chinese government on this matter. Imperial China has a coast and a pressing need to protect it, especially considering Japanese aggression against them in the last decade.

He privately takes the Chinese delegation aside and asks them to tone down the rhetoric.

ooc
41,000 ton battleships and battlecruisers as of 1917

USN
(game rating 6-6-4-5) Montana, North Carolina, Indiana, Massachusetts, (41,000 ton warships) (have 12 x 16 inch guns, 24 knot speed, very heavy armor)

RN
(game rating 4-4-7-5) proposed Admiral class (historic Hood), possibly others (Rodney, Nelson, Anson) a BC3 class basically)

IJN
(game rating 5-4-6-5) proposed Owari class (Owari, Tosa, Aratama, Goryu)
a BC3 class

The British delegate voices his opinion on several issues:

Germany, Britain believes, has no real need for Crusiers to patrol the few remaining German possessions in the Pacific. Patrol boats combined with IJN protection seems able enough to counter any aggressive movement on the islands.

Britain finds the proposal regarding the Dutch Navy acceptable, especially as the Netherlands has made no aggressive movements as of late, and two additional Battleships would assist in the defense of the vital Dutch East Indies.

Lastly, Britain feels that neither Imperial China nor the Republic of China needs a navy other than simple patrolling. A Navy would do little to counter any Japanese agression which would come from Manchuria, not the sea.

Parthini;12119694']Britain finds the proposal regarding the Dutch Navy acceptable, especially as the Netherlands has made no aggressive movements as of late, and two additional Battleships would assist in the defense of the vital Dutch East Indies.

Lastly, Britain feels that neither Imperial China nor the Republic of China needs a navy other than simple patrolling. A Navy would do little to counter any Japanese agression which would come from Manchuria, not the sea.

The Imperium delegate voices his support for the last two British suggestions.

Japan protests the largening of Imperial China's navy, especially when Imperial China has a relatively small coastline, and no other areas to guard over

Japan agrees to the American proposal

Bulgaria restates its request to exempt the Bulgarian Navy from the stationing clause as it would be prove to be difficult to protect Bulgaria's Mediteranian Coast without acess to Salonika.

Bulgaria restates its request to exempt the Bulgarian Navy from the stationing clause as it would be prove to be difficult to protect Bulgaria's Mediteranian Coast without acess to Salonika.

Italy will not accept or allow this. Simply put.

Bulgaria restates its request to exempt the Bulgarian Navy from the stationing clause as it would be prove to be difficult to protect Bulgaria's Mediteranian Coast without acess to Salonika.

Bulgaria's Mediterranean coast is so small that it can be adequately defended with coastal fortifications. There is no need for Bulgaria to have special privileges regarding basing rights under the proposed treaty.

In private, the French continue to pressure the Americans and British to support a clause allowing France to build more warships should the alliance with Italy be canceled at some point in the future. It is pointed out, especially to the Americans (who have been isolated from Europe in the past), that the balance of power can shift practically overnight, and that expecting things to remain as they are and calcified for another twelve years is wishful thinking at best, and dangerous naivete at worst. It is implied that France would be much more willing to accept the treaty as it is currently proposed, if such a clause was included.

Finally, the French note that France has more cruisers than it would be allowed under the current proposal. Observing that the Americans offered to buy the excess Italian cruisers, France askes if the United States would be willing to forgive an amount of French debt equivalent to the cost of the cruisers France would be forced to decommission should the treaty be ratified as is (ooc: France has 24 CLs and 2 heavy cruisers, so if I was only permitted fifteen I'd have to scrap 11 ships, which would come out to 22 points)

The Spanish delegates see the arguing between the Chinese, and wonder why Belgium currently isn't here. Do neutrals get the privledge of not being here? That'd be nice. THey wait for their request to the United States patiently.

In addition to coastal defence, There is also a matter of protecting naval commerce, of which a majority occurs in the mediteranian, in the event of conflict we would ask that we retain the capaability to escort our civilian vessels.

We also believe that we should also be able to retain our capabilities to protect our teritorial waters in addition to the our coasts, they are after all soverign Bulgarian Territory.

In addition to coastal defence, There is also a matter of protecting naval commerce, of which a majority occurs in the mediteranian, in the event of conflict we would ask that we retain the capaability to escort our civilian vessels.

An annoyed Portuguese delegate helpfully points out to the Bulgarians that the Washington Treaty provisions regarding basing are only in effect during peacetime.

No nation may station its warships at the naval base or yard of another nation during peacetime or use their facilities.

Unfortunately, whether in war or in peace, no warships are allowed to cross the Turkish Straits, hence our dillemma...

A short brief is sent to all attending powers by Prince Nhung Phong, attached to the Siamese delegation:

Regarding the matter of Turkish control over the straits leading to the Black Sea, the relevant treaties are the Treaty of San Stefano and the Treaty of Berlin. The Treaty of San Stefano dictated that any ship might move through the straits unhindered, while the Treaty of Berlin dictated that no warships should move through the straits in times of peace.

When the Treaty of Berlin was signed, it amended the Treaty of San Stefano; thus, the relevant part of the Treaty of San Stefano was voided and should be mentioned no more. This means that the Treaty of Berlin is the relevant treaty and that no warships should be allowed through the straits;

However, it may be justly argued that the Treaty of Berlin was voided when the Ottoman Empire let German and Austrian warships through the straits while still at peace. This argument holds some validity, but if this is valid then the straits have no treaty governing them. This means that if one accepts that the Treaty of Berlin was voided, then one must accept that the Turkish government has control over the straits as territorial waters and may let whichever ships it wishes through them.

To summerize, there are two valid positions on the matter: that the Turkish government can let no warships through its straits, or that the Turkish government may let warships through the straits at its own disgression.

After some consultation and a telegram or three from Petrograd, Baron Rosen announces that Russia will concede the six battleship limit in the Baltic, if the number of battleships they are allowed is raised to eleven or twelve.

"The Black Sea, although vital to Russia and in need of protection, is cut off from the rest of the world during war time, as it is the right of the Turkish people to refuse passage to war ships through the Dardenelles. Therefore, some of our naval strength would be locked in the Black Sea and helpless to intervene in any conflict. We request that the limit on our captial ships be raised by either one or two ships, on the condition that at least one or two always be assigned to the Black Sea."

Unfortunately, whether in war or in peace, no warships are allowed to cross the Turkish Straits, hence our dillemma...

At this point various experts begin to notice the different opinions regarding the legal status of the Bosporus and the Dardanelle Straits. Baron Rosen has apparently taken the position that the only treaty in force is the Treaty of San Stefano, which simply states in Article 24 that the Straits are open to all neutral ships in war and peacetime (including warships).

The 1878 Berlin Treaty, which the Bulgarian delegation feels is still in force, the Dardanelles strait, controlled by Turkey, cannot allow the passage of warships of any country to or from the Black Sea.

The difference of opinion stems from feelings that the Ottoman Empire and Coalition powers voided the Treaty when they sent warships into the Black Sea to blockade Russia (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=11806151&postcount=21) (the Ottoman Empire was still at peace with Russia at the time so its actions were a gross violation of the Treaty).

Contrary to what the misinformed Siamese delegation thinks, the relevant clauses of the San Stefano Treaty were not necessarily voided by the 1878 Berlin Treaty and the part about neutral shipping can still be considered to be in effect (that however has to be internationally established). Also, the 1878 Berlin Treaty applied during both peace and war.

There are numerous questions that need to be resolved. Is the 1878 Berlin Treaty still in effect after being violated by three of the signatories, is San Stefano in effect if Berlin is voided or are the Straits no longer governed by international agreement (and thus under the Turkish Republics sole digression), and, finally, should a new treaty be negotiated to end confusion once and for all?

One thing is clear though, at present the Russian Black Sea fleet is effectively cut off from the worlds oceans (hence Baron Rosens request).

Britain feels that since the Kemalist Revolution in Turkey has overthrown all old establishments of the Ottoman Empire, that the old treaties no longer apply to Turkey. Thus said, the Straits should be considered Turkish territorial waters and thus Turkey should be allowed to block any warships it pleases.

However, civilian shipping and neutral shipping during wartime must be allowed to pass through the Bosphorous without molestation (except for neutral shipping during a time of War, which should be searched for contraband, according to international law).

Contrary to what the misinformed Siamese delegation thinks, the relevant clauses of the San Stefano Treaty were not necessarily voided by the 1878 Berlin Treaty ...

The Vietnamese prince defends his point by pointing out that the right of warships to move through the waters freely was certainly voided. After the 1878 Berlin treaty was signed, it became the relevant agreement, superceding the Treaty of San Stefano. Therefore the treaty of San Stefano is void in regards to warships.

As evidence, Prince Phong asks interested parties to remember the situation before the war. According to the Berlin Treaty, which was in effect (everyone agrees on this point), no warships were allowed through. The San Stefano treaty was no longer in effect, as was clearly shown when the Russians complained about the Austrian ships moving through the straits (which would have been fine under San Stefano but illegal under the Berlin Treaty).

Thus, it is clear that under no interpretation may the warships clause of the San Stefano treaty still apply.

Rosen argues that the Berlin treaty is now voided in this case and that all should fall back upon the San Stefano treaty.

He also points out that the treaty should still apply to Turkey, as (under international law) "new" governments assume all treaties and debts of the old, unless that country can no longer be said to exist. Turkey is, after all, the Ottoman Empire in a different form, minus several territorial possessions stripped from it during the Great War (And it remained the Ottoman EMpire up until the revolution).

In addition, he reiterates Russia's need for the extra two battleships to guard the Black Sea, especially now with the straits being in what is essentially legal limbo. In addition, he would like to add an additional two cruisers to Russia's limit for the Black Sea as two cruisers are currently stationed there and would become useless in a time of war. That, or Turkey allow them to sail into the Atlantic.

He points out that the Siamese Prince is wrong, the Austrian ships were not neutral and thus under an un-amended San Stefano could not legally have been allowed through. The San Stefano treaty covers the passage of “neutral vessels” and with Berlin voided, warships by default fall under San Stefano’s provisions regarding neutral ships of all types.

Rosen argues that the Berlin treaty is now voided in this case and that all should fall back upon the San Stefano treaty.


The Siamese delegation regards this as rediculous. The San Stefano treaty was clearly amended by the Berlin treaty. If the Berlin Treaty is held to be void, the San Stefano treaty does not leap up from its grave and into full effect--there is simply no treaty governing the straits.

He also points out that the treaty should still apply to Turkey, as (under international law) "new" governments assume all treaties and debts of the old, unless that country can no longer be said to exist. Turkey is, after all, the Ottoman Empire in a different form, minus several territorial possessions stripped from it during the Great War (And it remained the Ottoman EMpire up until the revolution).

This is entirely correct. Turkey is the successor state of the Ottoman Empire and all relevant treaties pertaining to the Ottoman Empire also apply to Turkey.

He points out that the Siamese Prince is wrong, the Austrian ships were not neutral and thus under an un-amended San Stefano could not legally have been allowed through. The San Stefano treaty covers the passage of “neutral vessels” and with Berlin voided, warships by default fall under San Stefano’s provisions regarding neutral ships of all types.

Prince Phong recognizes the specific point in question and concedes it. The Austrian ships were not neutral.

However, this is an issue quite separate from whether or not the Treaty of San Stefano should govern the straits. Prince Phong wonders whether or not a similar logic could govern a violation of the Arlington Treaty.

Suppose, Phong points out, that Germany re-militarized the Rhineland and France re-militarized Alsace-Lorraine, breaking the Arlington Treaty. A bloody stalemate war follows. After all is said and done, the section of the Arlington treaty pertaining to demilitarization is clearly void because both sides violated it.

Under Rosen's logic, Phong argues, France would be obligated to return Alsace-Lorraine to Germany because the Arlington treaty is void! According to the Baron's logic, the last relevant treaty would be the one ending the France-Prussian war, so that is the treaty that would determine the ownership of Alsace-Lorraine. This is clearly silly, because the Arlington Treaty de facto amended the Treaty of Frankfurt that gave Alsace-Lorraine to Germany.

The point of all this, Phong says, is to prove the theory behind Rosen's ideas unsound. Treaties do not live forever if they are superceded by another treaty; they are rendered invalid and die peaceful deaths.

The rest of the Siamese delegation looks on with amusement, caring litte for the fate of the Dardanelles.

Rosen agreees to Phong's second point as that was, after all, the entire point he was trying to make.

"As for the rest of your arguement...You would argue that a territorial dispute between two nations is the same as that effecting the trade and shipping of many nations, world-wide? You seem to forget that several nations rely on the Dardenelles for external trade, including the Kingdom of Armenia. If the Turks can simply bar anyone they wish from entering or leaving the straits, then they would be cut off from trade. It would be impossible for them to ship their goods out or import goods via sea."

"However, let us abandon the outdated treaties and settle on a new one. Russia's position on this is thus: either no nations should be allowed to send warships through in peacetime or all nations are allowed to send warships through the straits during peacetime."

Phong drafts another brief denouncing the Russians as "uncultured barbarians" that "use half-baked theories and non sequiter attacks that reveal their intellectual weakness." At this point, the senior Siamese delegate sends him back to Bangkok with instructions to keep the Prince "in a drawer somewhere where he will do no damage."

Privately, Baron Rosen, an experienced diplomat whose signature is born upon many a lasting treaty has “no interest in a lecture from some prince playing amateur diplomat for the delegation of some dishonest Asiatic Potentate that has willfully violated its agreements in the past and is at this very moment paying an indemnity for those violations.”

Publically he says nothing regarding the Prince.

Returning to the most pressing matter at hand, Rosen states that if there is at present no treaty in force and Turkey can legally allow the passage of warships into the Black Sea (as it illegally did last war) and arbitrarily block Russian warships, then Russia will require an even more significant naval presence in the Black for reasons of security, up to four Battleships and several cruisers. Either Berlin 1878 or certain provisions of San Stefano are still in effect and internationally recognized (or implemented in the Naval Treaty currently being negotiated), in which case Russia requires two additional battleships and two Cruisers as the Black Sea Fleet is utterly cut off from the worlds oceans (12 Battleships and 17 Cruisers in total), or there is no Treaty in effect, in which case Russia requires twice as many additional ships given it would perpetually be threatened with the prospect of naval encirclement, as in the last war (14 battleships and 20 cruisers in total).

OOC: I'm a Kilani puppet.

France points out that should Turkey allow an Austrian or German fleet into the Black Sea, said fleet could easily be based out of Bulgaria, and France would be unable to come to the direct aid of Russia because of Turkish control of the Dardanelles. France thus supports Russia being allowed more ships, so that it may station an adequate number in the Black Sea to ensure security. It is also suggested, to assuage some of the concerns of other nations, that a clause be added to the treaty forcing Russia to keep the extra ships in the Black Sea.

It is noted that adding such a clause to the treaty would be a sufficient guarantee of Russian compliance; unlike the previous Turkish government, the Russian Empire has no established history of breaking internationally-recognized agreements.

Needless to say, the Bulgarian diplomat iterates his concern over a possible buildup of the Russian Fleet in the Black Sea and feels that the Russians are missing the spirit of the treaty.

We were under the impression that Turkey is not currently allowing any warships passage through the straits, something which has been time and again indicated to us while engaging in negotiations with them.

So we see no reason for the large amount of concern expressed by the French and Russian representatives.

This however contributes greatly to the our very own Dillemma, without a suitable base open to us in the Mediterrainian and without the abillity to send vessels from the Black Sea to the Medteranian Sea, we find ourselves unable to protect our Southern Coast and territorial waters effectively from smugglers, much less from forigen aggressers.

Needless to say, the Bulgarian diplomat iterates his concern over a possible buildup of the Russian Fleet in the Black Sea and feels that the Russians are missing the spirit of the treaty.

We were under the impression that Turkey is not currently allowing any warships passage through the straits, something which has been time and again indicated to us while engaging in negotiations with them.

So we see no reason for the large amount of concern expressed by the French and Russian representatives.

This however contributes greatly to the our very own Dillemma, without a suitable base open to us in the Mediterrainian and without the abillity to send vessels from the Black Sea to the Medteranian Sea, we find ourselves unable to protect our Southern Coast and territorial waters effectively from smugglers, much less from forigen aggressers.

Leave smugglers to Italy. We will not allow Bulgarians a military port right beside our nation.

Leave smugglers to Italy. We will not allow Bulgarians a military port right beside our nation.

The Bulgarian diplomat is puzzled by this statement, retires to consult with his collegues on the possible meaning of this statement, finally after consulting the map to make sure that the Italian Peninsula hasn't changed its position recently the Bulgarian informs that the Bulgarians assume that port acess in Salonika does not conflict with any nearby Italian interests.

Conversely, in the intersts of national soverignity, Bulgaria would wish to be able to protect its own waters.

The United States points out that if Macedonia allows Bulgaria to build a naval base at Salonika, its between Macedonia and Bulgaria, and certainly not part of the proposed treaty.

Noting that the tonnage limits seem acceptable, the US urges progress on the rest of the treaty.

Unfortunately, whether in war or in peace, no warships are allowed to cross the Turkish Straits, hence our dillemma...

the US also believes that the Treaty of San Stefano is the relevent one in this case, because the Turks did indeed allow Austrian and Italian warships into the Black Sea before becoming a bellegerent nation during the last war, and the US believes in freedom in the seas.

Such a narrow interpretation for example regarding the Panama Canal, which is US territory, would be a substantial inconvience to the worlds shipping, and so would such an interpretation by the British in regards to the Suez Canal.

ooc
Intelligence officers and naval officers present consider the implications of what could very well be an implied threat and advise their delegations to consider that such an interpretation of international law would create a precendent that could be dangerous. In short, if the Turkish Straits are closed to warships in peacetime, then so could the Suez and Panama Canals.

The United States points out that if Macedonia allows Bulgaria to build a naval base at Salonika, its between Macedonia and Bulgaria, and certainly not part of the proposed treaty.

Noting that the tonnage limits seem acceptable, the US urges progress on the rest of the treaty.

The Bulgarian Government is relieved at this and is happy to continue the already present relationship with Macedonia.

The rest of the treaty is satisfactory to Bulgaria, although it is wondered whether one type of vessels may be replaced with another with relation to limitations; Can Bulgaria build 2 extra cruisers instead of building Aircraft carriers? This is mainly because Bulgaria does not expect to be building many carriers in the near future?

The Bulgarian Government is relieved at this and is happy to continue the already present relationship with Macedonia.

OOC: However, Bulgaria cannot base units out of the civil port of Salonika nor a Macedonian naval base (if one is ever built). What the Americans are saying is that Bulgaria has to get the agreement of the Macedonian Government in order to build one of its own naval bases (naval bases are 6 points, .5 upkeep, and when on foreign territory they often have additional costs in rent).

No nation may station its warships at the naval base or yard of another nation during peacetime or use their facilities.

the US also believes that the Treaty of San Stefano is the relevent one in this case, because the Turks did indeed allow Austrian warships into the Black Sea before becoming a bellegerent nation during the last war, and the US believes in freedom in the seas.

Throughout the conference there is much snickering at Prince Nhung Phong's expense and the Siamese delegation becomes something of a joke.

"To think," says one European delegate behind closed doors, "that there are so many fascinating things in this world for one to experience; and we have to sit here and to listen to the prattling of the Siamese, who are so stupid."

Baron Rosen comments that his only consolation for the wasted time is that the whole exchange will make a humorous, if brief, anecdote that he can put in his memoirs.

OOC: However, Bulgaria cannot base units out of the civil port of Salonika nor a Macedonian naval base (if one is ever built). What the Americans are saying is that Bulgaria has to get the agreement of the Macedonian Government in order to build one of its own naval bases (naval bases are 6 points, .5 upkeep, and when on foreign territory they often have additional costs in rent).

Yes, I seem to to remember that this was agreed upon on the Arlington Peace treaty, Bulgaria has a right to construct a naval yard and a fortress in the vicinity of Salonika, yet this hasn't done yet.

Throughout the conference there is much snickering at Prince Nhung Phong's expense and the Siamese delegation becomes something of a joke.

"To think," says one European delegate behind closed doors, "that there are so many fascinating things in this world for one to experience; and we have sit here and to listen to the prattling of the Siamese, who are so stupid."

Baron Rosen comments that his only consolation for the wasted time is that the whole exchange will make a humorous, if brief, antidote that he can put in his memoirs.

OOC: Why ya'll gotta be hatin' on the the Prince?

IC: Back in Siam, Prince Phong rages impotently behind his desk in the Office of Rice Contemplation.

US proposal

Size limitations
Battleships are defined as any warship carrying guns larger then 8 inches, with a maximum size of 35,000 tons and maximum size gun of 16 inches.

Each Navy however would be allowed to keep up to 4 battleships that do not exceed 41,000 tons or build up to 4.

Aircraft carriers cannot exceed 33,000 tons and cannot carry weapons larger then 8 inches.

Cruisers cannot exceed 10,000 tons and cannot carry weapons larger then 8 inches. In addition, a cruiser is any warship with guns greater then 5.1 inches and less then 8 inches that is not an aircraft carrier.

Destroyers cannot exceed 4,000 tons.

Numerical limitations
USA – 20 battleships, 35 cruisers, 100 submarines, 10 carriers
British Empire - 20 battleships, 35 cruisers, 100 submarines, 10 carriers
Japanese Empire – 15 battleships, 25 cruisers, 100 submarines, 8 carriers
German Empire – 15 battleships, 25 cruisers, 100 submarines, 8 carriers
Russian Empire – 10 battleships, 15 cruisers, 100 submarines, 4 carriers
French Empire – 10 battleships, 15 cruisers, 100 submarines, 4 carriers
Italian Empire – 10 battleships, 15 cruisers, 100 submarines, 4 carriers
Austrian Empire – 10 battleships, 15 cruisers, 100 submarines, 4 carriers
Netherlands Empire - 6 battleships, 8 cruisers, 60 submarines, 2 carriers
All other navies limited to 4 battleships, 8 cruisers, 40 submarines, 2 carriers

Cruisers can be substituted for battleships or carriers (2 cruisers = 1 battleship or carrier for this purpose)

Note that British Empire includes Canada, Australia, New Zealand, South Africa

Special provisions:
Germany cannot construct fortifications or naval yards in the Pacific Ocean

Japan cannot construct bases or fortifications on German territory in Pacific Ocean

Russia cannot have more then 6 battleships in the Baltic Sea or Pacific Ocean

The United States cannot construct fortifications or naval yards west of the International Dateline except for the Philippines (and only those already constructed)

British Empire cannot construct fortifications in the Pacific Ocean except for in Australia, New Zealand and Singapore

No nation may station its warships at the naval base or yard of another nation during peacetime or use their facilities.

A moratorium on the construction of battleships for 10 years beginning 1920.

Treaty to be re discussed in 1930.

Treaty as the US is willing to live with at this point

The French again indicate to the Americans that they would be much more willing to accept the limitations imposed on them by this treaty if a clause was included to allow France to increase the size of its navy should its alliance with Italy be canceled at some point in the future.

The French again indicate to the Americans that they would be much more willing to accept the limitations imposed on them by this treaty if a clause was included to allow France to increase the size of its navy should its alliance with Italy be canceled at some point in the future.

The United States is willing to live with that and considers that a reasonable request.

The Dutch requests a special provision that both Japan and the British Empire to pledge to defend the Dutch East Indies from each other. Both sides have agree to the pledge.

Spain reiterates that it's unfair to put it in the same listing as the Netherlands or other nations, since Spain is as special a case as Italy or France. Spain is not asking for more battleships, but still needs at least 8 more cruisers than this would allow the country. The ferryway between the Moroccan coasts and Spain "proper" need to be protected properly from any marauding ships that might question our neutrality or try to make war in a neutral sea zone. (Ergo France and Germany go to war, Tangier and Africa's neighbors start a ruckus, I need enough to protect my interests in Morocco while they tear at eachother in Tangier and other locals.)

Britain reminds America of the increase of British Cruisers to 45 allowed.

The French again indicate to the Americans that they would be much more willing to accept the limitations imposed on them by this treaty if a clause was included to allow France to increase the size of its navy should its alliance with Italy be canceled at some point in the future.

Japan asks if this provision is allowed, then shouldn't a provision be made that would allow Germany to build extra ships if the Baltic Union left their alliance, or Bulgaria to build more if Macedonia left their alliance?

The United States is willing to live with that and considers that a reasonable request.

The French propose an additional five battleships and ten cruisers, as that would bring the French navy to parity with its German counterpart (in addition, the Germans would still have twice as many carriers).

The Japanese are ignored, partly as the Americans have already agreed to the French request and partly because the Japanese argument is in no way parallel to the French arguments, as the Baltic Union ending an alliance with Germany would not put a potentially hostile navy between Germany and areas of vital strategic importance. The same goes for the Bulgarians and Macedonia.

Parthini;12126102']Britain reminds America of the increase of British Cruisers to 45 allowed.

US is ok with that, but reserves the right to have 45 cruisers as well

The US agreed with France that IF their alliance with Italy ended, THEN it would be willing to accept France building up to parity to Germany. But not otherwise for reasons already indicated.

The US reminds the Netherlands it gets either 6 battleships OR a treaty provision from Japan and the British guaranteeing non aggression against the Dutch East Indies and protection from the other power in the event that Japan or Britain attacks. But not both (take your choice, its one or the other).

Spain is informed that the US has agreed to let it substitute cruisers for battleships already.

The US reminds the Netherlands it gets either 6 battleships OR a treaty provision from Japan and the British guaranteeing non aggression against the Dutch East Indies and protection from the other power in the event that Japan or Britain attacks. But not both (take your choice, its one or the other). .

The Dutch take the 6 battleships instead of the non-aggression pacts.

The Dutch take the 6 battleships instead of the non-aggression pacts.

As 1917 comes to a close, discussions continue in Washington, with every sign of an agreement coming soon.

As 1917 comes to a close, discussions continue in Washington, with every sign of an agreement coming soon.

OOC: How long do we have to get rid of excess ships?

OOC: How long do we have to get rid of excess ships?

ooc
January 1, 1920

Current Treaty as amended

Size limitations
Battleships are defined as any warship carrying guns larger then 8 inches, with a maximum size of 35,000 tons and maximum size gun of 16 inches.

Each Navy however would be allowed to keep up to 4 battleships that do not exceed 41,000 tons or build up to 4 (these count against their maximum numerical limits however)

Aircraft carriers cannot exceed 33,000 tons and cannot carry weapons larger then 8 inches.

Cruisers cannot exceed 10,000 tons and cannot carry weapons larger then 8 inches. In addition, a cruiser is any warship with guns greater then 5.1 inches and less then 8 inches that is not an aircraft carrier.

Destroyers cannot exceed 4,000 tons and cannot have guns greater then 5.1 inches.

Numerical limitations
USA – 20 battleships, 45 cruisers, 100 submarines, 10 carriers
British Empire - 20 battleships, 45 cruisers, 100 submarines, 10 carriers
Japanese Empire – 15 battleships, 25 cruisers, 100 submarines, 8 carriers
German Empire – 15 battleships, 25 cruisers, 100 submarines, 8 carriers
Russian Empire – 12 battleships, 17 cruisers, 100 submarines, 4 carriers
French Empire – 10 battleships, 15 cruisers, 100 submarines, 4 carriers
Italian Empire – 10 battleships, 15 cruisers, 100 submarines, 4 carriers
Austrian Empire – 10 battleships, 15 cruisers, 100 submarines, 4 carriers
Netherlands Empire - 6 battleships, 8 cruisers, 60 submarines, 2 carriers
All other navies limited to 4 battleships, 8 cruisers, 40 submarines, 2 carriers

Cruisers can be substituted for battleships or carriers (2 cruisers = 1 battleship or carrier for this purpose)

Note that British Empire includes Canada, Australia, New Zealand, South Africa

Special provisions:
Germany cannot construct fortifications or naval yards in the Pacific Ocean

Japan cannot construct bases or fortifications on German territory in Pacific Ocean

Russia cannot have more then 6 battleships in the Baltic Sea or Pacific Ocean

The United States cannot construct fortifications or naval yards west of the International Dateline except for the Philippines (and only those already constructed) and the British Empire will not construct fortifications in the Caribbean.

British Empire cannot construct fortifications in the Pacific Ocean except for in Australia, New Zealand and Singapore

No nation may station its warships at the naval base or yard of another nation during peacetime or use their facilities.

A moratorium on the construction of battleships for 10 years beginning 1920.

France may increase its tonnage to equal Germany IF its alliance with Italy ceases

Cruisers can be substituted for carriers or battleships at the rate of 2 cruisers for each battleship or carrier.

Treaty to be re discussed in 1930.

ooc
Note changes in cost, and fuel requirements in Military thread


http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=498004

Argentina and Chile agree to sign the treaty as currently amended if Brazil does the same

Britain again reminds America of the new British Cruiser ratio (45) and the agreement of no fortifications in the Caribbean.

Argentina and Chile agree to sign the treaty as currently amended if Brazil does the same

Brazil will sign the treaty.

Turkey will sign the treaty.

Denmark signs the treaty.

Rosen reminds the US of the Black Sea issue and asks that the number of battleships and cruisers allowed to the Russians be increased by two each, with the provision that at least two of them be stationed in the Black Sea.

A moratorium on the construction of battleships for 10 years beginning 1920.

France may increase its tonnage to equal Germany IF its alliance with Italy ceases.

As a final point of clarification, the French ask the Americans whether the moratorium would apply to new ships constructed in the event that the alliance with Italy is canceled.

Rosen reminds the US of the Black Sea issue and asks that the number of battleships and cruisers allowed to the Russians be increased by two each, with the provision that at least two of them be stationed in the Black Sea.

The US is willing to accept that. The US also replies to France that the moratorium should remain in place even if France and Italy cease to be allies, except for the provision that France may build up to the allowed number of warships (ooc in other words, not replace old ships, just add new ones).

In addition, the US wants the following provision added to the treaty.

Nations that are part of this treaty may not provide economic assistance to another treaty party or accept such assistance so that it can pay the upkeep of its navy (ooc no giving points to minor nations to give your alliance more warships).

OOC
US is reading codes (just like it did in real life at this conference, and those who are discussing this know who you are)

It is wondered whether or not this proposed provision could exempt smaller vessels such as destroyers, minesweepers, MTB flottila's, escorts, transports and perhaps to a lesser extent, light cruisers?

Although we believe we understand the motives behind this measures, we hope our arrangements to help Macedonia pay maintenance to its MTB flottila (which is used to protect both our coasts from smuglers as a temporary measure) were not on the minds of the Americans when this provision was proposed, we also hope that this provision wouldn't inconvenience the relationship with Macedonia.

It is wondered whether or not this proposed provision could exempt smaller vessels such as destroyers, minesweepers, MTB flottila's, escorts, transports and perhaps to a lesser extent, light cruisers?

Although we believe we understand the motives behind this measures, we hope our arrangements to help Macedonia pay maintenance to its MTB flottila (which is used to protect both our coasts from smuglers as a temporary measure) were not on the minds of the Americans when this provision was proposed, we also hope that this provision wouldn't inconvenience the relationship with Macedonia.

ooc
except for tonnage limits on the size of destroyers, at this point there are no limits on other vessels except cruisers. As cruisers are too important to the other nations, removing limits there is not in the interests of the other treaty signers.

Italy has come to the conclusion that parity between itself and the Imperium is not quite balanced. Italy must defend two coastlines, northern africa, eastern africa, madagascar, and Quemoy in the Pacific.

Austria has to defend its coastline in the Adriatic. Do you honestly expect Italy to place its entire fleet in the Adriatic to defend against any Imperial aggression?

ooc
except for tonnage limits on the size of destroyers, at this point there are no limits on other vessels except cruisers. As cruisers are too important to the other nations, removing limits there is not in the interests of the other treaty signers.

OOC: I meant the provision calling to limit economic aid to develop the navies of client states; Bulgaria would of course mind Russia supplying Armenia with 4 SDN's, for instance, but have no qualms with them supplying Armenia with 4 escort flottila's.

OOC: I meant the provision calling to limit economic aid to develop the navies of client states; Bulgaria would of course mind Russia supplying Armenia with 4 SDN's, for instance, but have no qualms with them supplying Armenia with 4 escort flottila's.

The United States has a lot of qualms regarding this, and feels leaving this as a possible loophole paves the way for a lot of opportunities for nations to sidestep the treaty.

Better that nations fund their own militaries, especially navies.

The French support the addition to the treaty of the US proposal concerning nations funding their own militaries, rather than allowing major powers to fund the militaries of puppet states.

Japan agrees to sign the treaty

Russia agrees to the American proposal regarding economic aid to puppets and client states for naval build up. Rosen has just one more issue he would like addressed before he signs the trety. He suggests that the rules for the Dardenelles be codified in the the Washington Naval Treaty to avoid confusion in the future and make it completely clear to all nations.

Britain signs the treaty.

The Bulgarian Diplomat supposes one must make comprimises, after all isn't Diplomacy the art of Comprimise?

the Bulgarian Diplomat agrees to the American Treaty.

France signs the treaty.

The Netherlands signs the treaty.

The Kingdom of Sweden will also sign as a party to the agreement...

Russia agrees to the American proposal regarding economic aid to puppets and client states for naval build up. Rosen has just one more issue he would like addressed before he signs the trety. He suggests that the rules for the Dardenelles be codified in the the Washington Naval Treaty to avoid confusion in the future and make it completely clear to all nations.

The US is willing to accept that the Treaty of St Stefano is recognized as the primary treaty in effect at this time regarding the Turkish Straits

The US is willing to accept that the Treaty of St Stefano is recognized as the primary treaty in effect at this time regarding the Turkish Straits

With this final request acknowledged, Rosen signs the treaty on the behalf of Russia.

The Imperial Chinese Delegate accepts the wisdom of the United Kingdom in China's case and signs the treaty with no change to it's assigned naval limits.
THe Russian delegate is quietly thanked for the support he gave earlier.

Italy has come to the conclusion that parity between itself and the Imperium is not quite balanced. Italy must defend two coastlines, northern africa, eastern africa, madagascar, and Quemoy in the Pacific.

Austria has to defend its coastline in the Adriatic. Do you honestly expect Italy to place its entire fleet in the Adriatic to defend against any Imperial aggression?

The United States is under the impression that Italy is allied with France, so in that case, wouldn't the French be helping with that. It is also notable that naval geography (the narrow entrance of the Adriatic Sea) markedly favors Italy, which would need only mines and some heavy guns and submarines to prevent the Austrians from leaving the Adriatic if it should so desire.

Finally, the French note that France has more cruisers than it would be allowed under the current proposal. Observing that the Americans offered to buy the excess Italian cruisers, France askes if the United States would be willing to forgive an amount of French debt equivalent to the cost of the cruisers France would be forced to decommission should the treaty be ratified as is (ooc: France has 24 CLs and 2 heavy cruisers, so if I was only permitted fifteen I'd have to scrap 11 ships, which would come out to 22 points)

OOC: Did the Americans agree to this? I need to know, for purposes of planning builds and such.

Italy shall sign and all that jazz

OOC: Did the Americans agree to this? I need to know, for purposes of planning builds and such.

ooc
how many cruisers and how many points are we discussing exactly

ooc
how many cruisers and how many points are we discussing exactly

ooc: 11 ships and 22 points of debt forgiven.

Spain signs the treaty, though the signer looks a little annoyed at the American not identifying Spain as an equal to France, Italy, or Germany.

(Uhh one thing I have to comment. I see alot of nations ignoring this treaty as the United States and Great Britian did not serve in the Great War. In effect the power of the countries is a threat at best. THere is no major defeat to force nations to follow it. THe United States is still an unknown pushing it's weight around. So that's just something I noticed.)

Spain signs the treaty, though the signer looks a little annoyed at the American not identifying Spain as an equal to France, Italy, or Germany.

(Uhh one thing I have to comment. I see alot of nations ignoring this treaty as the United States and Great Britian did not serve in the Great War. In effect the power of the countries is a threat at best. THere is no major defeat to force nations to follow it. THe United States is still an unknown pushing it's weight around. So that's just something I noticed.)

ooc
an unknown with the worlds second largest navy at the moment and every sign that it could make it larger without that treaty

at this point waiting on German signature, and uncertain if player is available until next week

ooc: 11 ships and 22 points of debt forgiven.

considering the US sold them to France to begin with there is considerable amusement at this prospect by the Democratic Congress, which immediately does its level best to make the Hughes Administration look foolish on this issue.

Bottom line, the US can forgive 11 points of debt after considerable struggle in Congress.

Germany will sign.

In 1919, the US Congress ratifies the treaty

ooc
will post final version and post link in main thread soon

The American press notes that Russia is in violation of the Washington Naval Treaty, having 16 battleships, including those in mothballs, when it is supposed to have only 12 and that the Ukraine is violating the moratorium on new battleship construction, which includes ALL battleships

The American press notes that Russia is in violation of the Washington Naval Treaty, having 16 battleships, including those in mothballs, when it is supposed to have only 10 and that the Ukraine is violating the moratorium on new battleship construction, which includes ALL battleships

The French Embassy notes that Russia is allowed two additional battleships for the Black Sea, so the total is in fact 12, but promises to investigate claims that Russia is in violation of the treaty, and if indeed they are, put (in the words of the Ambassador) "tremendous pressure on them."

The French Embassy notes that Russia is allowed two additional battleships for the Black Sea, so the total is in fact 12, but promises to investigate claims that Russia is in violation of the treaty, and if indeed they are, put (in the words of the Ambassador) "tremendous pressure on them."

ooc
note that nobody is supposed to have any battleships, cruisers or submarines in mothballs

There is a swift investigation into the matter by the Russian government, which results in several higher ups being summarily sacked and two admirals court-martialed and dishonorably discharged for dereliction of duty.

The mistake is quickly rectified as the four older battleships still in mothballs are used for target practice and the Ukranians told to halt their construction of their battleship immediately or face investigations into their government.