Washington Treaty 1922 and its Impact on SRGW

Have a feature request for SRGW? Post here.

Moderators: Balthagor, Moderators

Post Reply
geminif4ucorsair
General
Posts: 1286
Joined: Jun 08 2005

Washington Treaty 1922 and its Impact on SRGW

Post by geminif4ucorsair »

Suggestion: The Washington Treaty of 1922 needs to be part of SRGW.

Below is some background and suggestions as to how to implement.

Background:

The U.S. initiated the diplomatic effort on November 12, 1921 and was followed by three months of often intense negotiations, among the five major naval powers: U.S., Great Britain, France, Italy, and Japan. The "Contracting Powers" as they were called, eventually set to be lived by all three powers, including a "ratio" of warships, tonnage limitations, ship's displacement, adoption of the term "standard" or ", Washington standard", and, application of these standards to ships already under-construction of future replacements. Included in future replacement for aging tonnage of battleships was also established - thus, specific battleships could be build to the treaty limits at specific years, beginning in the late-20s.

This Washington Treaty was developed in the shadow of the larger League of Nations and Treaty of Versailles, at the aftermath of WW One. The war had spurred several major naval expansion programs, including the U.S. Naval Expansion Act of 1916. These programs were encourage by the perception that the winner(s) of the war would therefore become potential rivals in the post-war years. In this light, Japan laid down two 40,000-ton battleships as part of the "4-4 Program" (four BB, four BC). Not to be outdone, Great Britain planned letdown of four fast battlecruisers (G3 design selected).....and the U.S. was already engaged in the construction of new, fast battlecruisers (six planned) and design of the new "South Dakota" class battleships. What was clearly emerging was a new naval arms race.....whether the powers could afford the effort remained the major political question.

Great Britain could certainly not afford a new capital ship program, and Japan could ill afford the "4-4" Plan (especially in the wake of a disastrous earthquake) - possibly only the U.S. could have proceeded, but the election loss of President Woodrow Wilson quickly steered the U.S. into a new era of isolationism, under new President Warren G. Harding. Thus, the Americans were as interested in avoiding a future naval arms race and potential contentious foreign relations, or war, as were the other signatories - only Japan took the diplomatic agreement with great consternation - a sense of betrayal in Japan's military would have two decades of carryover into the future political-military relations within the island nation.

Also important for the U.S. was termination of the Anglo-Japanese alliance, due to expire in July 1921. Neither Great Britain or Japan was initially willing to give up the alliance - the latter seeing the alliance as a counter-weight to growing influence and power of the American's in the Pacific. Britain's empire in Asia was minimal, except in far away India, largely anchored by trade with China, most handled through the colonies of Singapore and Hong Kong - neither a military threat to Japan. The subsequent "Four-Power Treaty" (U.S., Great Britain, Japan, plus France) was concluded in conjunction with the Washington naval treaty, acceptance of existing colonies was insured by all parties; the Nine-Power Treaty (add, Belgium, the Netherlands, Italy, Portugal, and China) was agreed to that China's integrity (sic) and sovereignty were to be maintained, along with the U.S. "Open Door" policy, i.e. free trade with all parts of China, including those of other treaty signatories.

Treaty signed 6February1922.

SUGGESTION ON IMPLEMENTATION: Washington Treaty, 1921

* * Game Year 1921 (November) to 1922 (February): the 5 powers that signed the Treaty, would be given the Diplomatic question:
"Do you wish to sign the Washington Treaty"?......

* A "Yes' - would result in application of the treaty conditions, including limitations on ship designs (no battleships built over 35,000-tons standard displacement, etc.), numbers, etc. that were part of the treaty.

* A "No" vote - would result in Red line diplomatic relations with all other's who signed (said, "Yes").

In this manner, those not agreement to the Treaty conditions, would face serious threat of reduced diplomatic, trade and other conditions consistent with what normally happens when one has a Red line condition with other nations.

* * Alternative to "1921/1922" - what happens if a World War does not end before 1921/1922?
Let the year float, to be implemented by the AI when "conditions" are roughly equal to that post-World War, 1921/1922.
[BG and I can discuss what some of those conditions might be.....financial, etc. later.]
User avatar
Balthagor
Supreme Ruler
Posts: 22082
Joined: Jun 04 2002
Human: Yes
Location: BattleGoat Studios

Re: Washington Treaty 1922 and its Impact on SRGW

Post by Balthagor »

Noted. I appreciate the suggestion on how to implement. As this is "post war" I won't have a chance to put this in before release, but have added it to my "master events list" for further consideration post release.
Chris Latour
BattleGoat Studios
chris@battlegoat.com
geminif4ucorsair
General
Posts: 1286
Joined: Jun 08 2005

Re: Washington Treaty 1922 and its Impact on SRGW

Post by geminif4ucorsair »

Washington Treaty of 1922 needs to be part of SRGW, Part II

Dreadnought Battleships / Battlecruisers, November 1921

Gun Type Great Britain U.S. Japan France Italy

16-inch - 1 2 - -
15-inch (BC) 5 - - - -
15-inch (BB) 10 - - - -
14 / 13.5 / 14-inch (BC) 3 - 4 - -
14 / 13.5 / 14-inch (BB) 12 11 4 3 -
12-inch (BB/BC) 2 8 1 4 5(6)
-------------

Ref Italy: Battleship Leonardo da Vinci sunk in 1916 and was subsequent salved and
schedule to be rebuilt; as to Japan's Mutsu, Treaty counted the battleship as completed.


Comment regards implementing Treaty:

* * First, there are no guarantees as to whom the winners wold be - what if Great Britain or France are defeated and Germany or Austria-Hungary takes their land?

This becomes, therefore, an issue for BG to determine in peacetime - or even at a Player's request Option,
to request of the other power's with large capital ship fleets, to initiate the diplomatic provisions of the Washington Treaty. I particularly like this option, either built into the Player's Option panel or within the game
buttons.

* * Second, its a significant political move, should a player choose to implement the Option.
But, I can see several situations where one play or other of the "Big Five" - we might also include Russia in this and make it the "Big Six" (though, historically, with the Russian revolution, there was no chance of this happening).

Consider that the U.S., because neither Japan or GB have not broken their Anglo-Japanese Alliance (i.e., renewed it in 1922), and the U.S. for what ever reason (at war in the Caribbean or South America) cannot see a financial way to pay for the extensive "South Dakota" BB and "Constitution" BC ships, decides to initiate the Player Option button for beginning the Treaty discussion - something that should last 3-month in game time before a Player's final decision must be made - this would have the effect of reducing Capital Ship expenditures, reducing the number of capital ships in service (all GB 13.5" ships would be scrapped except the Training Ship category),
and limit the size of future BB/BC types (to Treaty 35,000-tons).

A Part III will follow.
Post Reply

Return to “Suggestions - SRGW”