What if the Washington Naval Treaty Failed

Now this one is a question I've been thinking. If the Washington Naval Treaty Failed, what would happen to the various Navies in the world.

The most common thing I heard is that the Royal Navy would be able to expand and the rest of the Commonwealth or Empire could get the Royal Navy's Battleships.

My Canadian, British and Australian friend has been cackling about Dreadnoughts for everyone in the Empire.
 
The United States would have completed the South Dakota's well the Lexington's would probably all be completed as aircraft carriers. Their conversion in our time line was rather fast, almost as if it had already been planned.
 
That said, why did it fail?
In OTL if i was right the The Japanese delegation was being spied on by the Cypher Bureau, a US intelligence service which the Americans used to their advantage in the talks, but what if the Japanese delegation discovers is spying on the delegations' communications and as a result the Japanese delegation declares that they are no longer taking part in the Washington Naval Conference, which is being held in Washington, D.C., United states of America. This has the result that the French government and the Italian government also call back their own delegations, ending the Washington Naval Conference.
 

Deleted member 94680

You might still get an “Anglo-American Naval Agreement” as both nation’s treasuries were becoming weary of the cost of ever-greater Naval platforms.

That said, it might simply limit tonnage and allow better well balanced designs to be built.

I also can’t see a “dreadnoughts for everyone” British route, WNT or no WNT. They simply couldn’t afford to keep building on the same scale. There probably won’t be any “cherry trees” though.
 
Most likely we would see a London Naval Treaty or a Paris Naval Treaty concluded in 1923 after the Great Kanton Earthquake with Britain USA France and Italy having a slightly superior ratio compared to Japan.
 
The Nine Power Treaty was about settling GB, US and Japanese differences over China. After that was agreed then they agreed that naval competition was not necessary so the Five Power Treaty was signed. All the others were just bit players.
With German naval threat removed so too did the wind go out of US support for the previous administrations naval program and there was a sharp depression on at the same time. The USN could see that HMS Hood was the HMS Dreadnought of her era and the US was saddled with slow ships when fast ships were what they wanted. Even the Battle Scouts were being rethought as 10,000ton 8” ships for cost reasons.
The RN will re equip with fewer modern battleships, the US will probably finish the SDs very slowly. The IJN will stop building after the 1923 earthquake and then live off the security provided by the Anglo- Japanese Treaty that would be renewed. In general navy’s will be newer but smaller. Any preww1 ships will be scrapped by 1930 or so. Most navies will only have a couple of 8” armed cruisers most new ships being 6” armed and smaller due to need for numbers not size.
 

Ian_W

Banned
Someone builds too many too-big battleships.

The only major butterflies happen if Neville Chamberlain, somehow, thinks Britain is best defended against Germany by More Battleships.
 

Deleted member 94680

The USN could see that HMS Hood was the HMS Dreadnought of her era and the US was saddled with slow ships when fast ships were what they wanted. Even the Battle Scouts were being rethought as 10,000ton 8” ships for cost reasons.
The RN will re equip with fewer modern battleships, the US will probably finish the SDs very slowly. The IJN will stop building after the 1923 earthquake and then live off the security provided by the Anglo- Japanese Treaty that would be renewed. In general navy’s will be newer but smaller. Any preww1 ships will be scrapped by 1930 or so. Most navies will only have a couple of 8” armed cruisers most new ships being 6” armed and smaller due to need for numbers not size.

This is a great take. I can really see this as the “new reality”. My only thought is, would the renewed interest in the Anglo-Japanese Alliance stifle the rise of the militarism, or redouble it? Would a militarist Japan break away or stay in line?
 

Ian_W

Banned
This is a great take. I can really see this as the “new reality”. My only thought is, would the renewed interest in the Anglo-Japanese Alliance stifle the rise of the militarism, or redouble it? Would a militarist Japan break away or stay in line?

Anything Anglo-Japanese is a Navy thing.

The troubles in China were essentially started by low ranking Army officers.

See the issue ?
 

Deleted member 94680

Anything Anglo-Japanese is a Navy thing.

The troubles in China were essentially started by low ranking Army officers.

See the issue ?

A turning point came with the ratification of the London Naval Treaty of 1930. Prime Minister Osachi Hamaguchi and his Minseito party agreed to a treaty which would severely limit Japanese naval power. This treaty was strongly opposed by the military, who claimed that it would endanger national defense, and was portrayed by the opposition Rikken Seiyukai party as having been forced upon Japan by a hostile United States, which further inflamed growing anti-foreign sentiment.

Whilst London and Washington were “Naval things”, they were governmental negotiations and as such reflect the authority of the government in national life.

In a world where there is no WNT or similar, the question remains how does this affect domestic political-military relations in Japan?

You’re correct in stating China was “low-ranking Army officers”, but they weren’t acting in a vacuum and I don’t “see the problem” as you say, as this goes to the issue at hand.

With no WNT, does this strengthen or weaken the militarist’s hand?
 
Most likely we would see a London Naval Treaty or a Paris Naval Treaty concluded in 1923 after the Great Kanton Earthquake with Britain USA France and Italy having a slightly superior ratio compared to Japan.
This ^ I think that sometime in 24-25 they get back together in London and agree to a new treaty.

The differences from OTL would be, that ship limit is probably more like 43-45,000t and 16" guns.

This is assuming,
- no 18" ships have been built, I think this is likely as no US plans and IJN/RN (no13/N3) would not have been started/competed by this point.
- No larger ships apart from the 4 G3s have been built ie limit is SD/Lex/Tosa/Kil/Amagi with G3s exempted in balance for smaller/older RN ships
- Cruiser stay at same size limit

Ratio wise,
- US/GB where happy with OTL WNT ratio
- Japan will be in a weaker position but then she might also have weaker ships v OTL WNT (not the post LNT cuts that we remember from WWII !)
- Fr/It are irrelevant and have build nothing since

Ship wise (by class or its to long!)

USN 6x SD 6xLex 4x Col, 2xT, 3xNM, 2x P, 2xNe , 2x NY......small stuff with 12" (assuming several of the Lex are not being redone as CVs?)
RN 4x G3, Hood, R&R, 5R, 5QE, Tiger, 4ID, many 13.5" and then 12" ....... (also pretending to start work on N3s but not actually wanting to spend the money)
IJN 4x Amagi 2x Tosa, 2x N&M, 2x I, 2x F, 4x Kongo,.......obsolite other small stuff (can they afford to finish all of that and even think about also Kii maybe building slowly but Owari has been bent by the quake)
MN old
RM old

So to balance them on WNT ratio trying to move toward 15,15,9,5,5 (US/GB/J/F/I) but actually allowed more at the start 18, 22, 10, 7, 6 (LNT was 15,15,9).

US would want all standards and potentially the two NY as training ships this cuts all 12" ships?
Say they get 6x SD 3xLex 4x Col, 2xT, 3xNM, 2x P, 2xNe = 22 ships + 3 Lex as CVs and 2 NY as TS

RN would want to match USN,
4x G3, Hood, R&R, 5R, 5QE, Tiger, 4ID = 22 with a couple of other 13.5" as TS

IJN would need 13 ish ships to match,
1x Kii, 4x Amagi 2x Tosa, 2x N&M, 2x I, 2x F, 4x Kongo = 17 they would need to cut 4 ships, I think converting two probably still uncompleted Amagis to CV and cutting two 14" ships (not sure if they cut F or Ks ?)
1x Kii, 2x Amagi 2x Tosa, 2x N&M, 2x I, 2x F, 2x Kongo

F/I can keep everything until they build new (or don't due to money) like OTL treaty.......


Long term effects.....?

- RN is stronger compared to European navy's and faster (and industry is stronger) this makes WWII in europe 39-41 easier for GB at least at Sea.

- Japan will have had more evidence that it cant fight US/GB in a long war as it can easily be out built, what effect does this have on Pacific war. (also that the anger of US code breaking is out earlier and this has less effect as Japan has to accept it due to quake/economy?)

- A 10 year holiday from 25 (ITTL L/WNT) will last until 1 JAN 1936 by that point this probably brings forward some building as its likley ITTL 1LNT is more like 2LNT ie no holiday/cuts but more just keep limits and build some new ships?
 
This is the wrong forum for this question as you have written it
That said, why did it fail?
Many reasons and possibilities but to many to count or say, even ASB could be mixed in to it but keep it out of that for now.
You might still get an “Anglo-American Naval Agreement” as both nation’s treasuries were becoming weary of the cost of ever-greater Naval platforms.

That said, it might simply limit tonnage and allow better well balanced designs to be built.

I also can’t see a “dreadnoughts for everyone” British route, WNT or no WNT. They simply couldn’t afford to keep building on the same scale. There probably won’t be any “cherry trees” though.
I wasn't talking about building new dreadnoughts, I mean the British selling those to Canada and Australia which also includes other ships the British are willing to get rid off but the Commonwealth could have better use for it.

In fact the question would be this, if the Washington Naval Conference failed and the next treaties only limit tonnage and allow better well balanced designs to be built like Stenz says would that really happen or would designs we only started to see in WWII started appearing much earlier.

/QUOTE]~snip~
That's the argument, but my Canadian and Australian friends started Cackling on how the British would probably sell those ships to their Governments.
 
A turning point came with the ratification of the London Naval Treaty of 1930. Prime Minister Osachi Hamaguchi and his Minseito party agreed to a treaty which would severely limit Japanese naval power. This treaty was strongly opposed by the military, who claimed that it would endanger national defense, and was portrayed by the opposition Rikken Seiyukai party as having been forced upon Japan by a hostile United States, which further inflamed growing anti-foreign sentiment.

Whilst London and Washington were “Naval things”, they were governmental negotiations and as such reflect the authority of the government in national life.

With no Treaty, the Japanese still have to deal with the fact they don't have much more to spend on the Navy post or pre 1923, without wrecking their economy. GNP was less than Italy
 
With no Treaty, the Japanese still have to deal with the fact they don't have much more to spend on the Navy post or pre 1923, without wrecking their economy. GNP was less than Italy
Well my American Friend who is in loved with the IJN started this mess by saying that the Japanese would have a Fleet of Yamatos but my British, Canadian and Australian Friends decided to have a counter argument in which case the Canadian and Australian started cackling about Canadian and Australian Dreadnoughts.
 
but my Canadian and Australian friends started Cackling on how the British would probably sell those ships to their Governments.
The British would love to sell (or even give) ships to them but what is realistic?

Australia is the best she might well be willing to have a ship but that means a new expensive Dry dock (maybe instead of Singapore base Perth/Darwin?) so they could take Tiger as a swap? I'm sure RN would be happy with that to save budget.

Canada - the dominion that didn't buy any cruisers between the wars (and cut most of the rest of the navy) is going to accept a battleship....... never going to be funded.

Well my American Friend who is in loved with the IJN started this mess by saying that the Japanese would have a Fleet of Yamatos but my British, Canadian and Australian Friends decided to have a counter argument in which case the Canadian and Australian started cackling about Canadian and Australian Dreadnoughts.
Look at and show them the budgets,
from http://www.combinedfleet.com/economic.htm
It's no secret that Japan was, shall we say, 'economically disadvantaged' in her ability to wage war against the Allies. However, the sheer, stunning magnitude of this economic disparity has never ceased to amaze me..........
America, even in the midst of
Depression , still had:

reddot.gif
Nearly twice the population of Japan.
reddot.gif
Seventeen time's Japan's national income.
reddot.gif
Five times more steel production.
reddot.gif
Seven times more coal production.
reddot.gif
Eighty (80) times the automobile production.
 

Deleted member 94680

I wasn't talking about building new dreadnoughts, I mean the British selling those to Canada and Australia which also includes other ships the British are willing to get rid off but the Commonwealth could have better use for it.

Britain won’t sell dreadnoughts to the dominions without building new ones to replace them.
 
Top