Treaties and War, The Washington Naval Conference
Вставка
- Опубліковано 16 сер 2017
- The History Guy remembers the Washington Naval Conference, a watershed in diplomacy.
The episode discusses events and shows some artwork depicting warships, which some viewers may find disturbing. All events are described for educational purposes and are presented in historical context.
The History Guy uses images that are in the Public Domain. As photographs of actual events are often not available, I will sometimes use photographs of similar events or objects for illustration.
Skip Intro: 00:10
Facebook: / thehistoryguyyt
Patreon: / thehistoryguy
The History Guy: Five Minutes of History is the place to find short snippets of forgotten history from five to fifteen minutes long. If you like history too, this is the channel for you.
Subscribe for more forgotten history: / @thehistoryguychannel .
Awesome The History Guy merchandise is available at:
teespring.com/stores/the-hist...
The episode is intended for educational purposes. All events are presented in historical context.
#ushistory #thehistoryguy #militaryhistory
April 28th 2023 I sincerely hope I’m not too late to say ,Thank You for all you do.
Mr. History...your 9:07 minutes of History has generated many more minutes of enjoyable and enlightening comments and discussion. I always learn from your episodes and from the often lively discussions .
I think you're underestimating the amount the Washington Treaty reduced stress between the USA and Great Britain. A number of commentators considered the "next war" of the time to likely be a US - British Empire conflict, likely over China. After the Washington Treaty, the situation calmed significantly.
I read Pat Buchanan’s book in which he argues That the Washington Navel treaty Actually humiliated Japan and set it on the course of opposition to the Western allies.
It also caused great Britain do you have to scrap a lot of good ships, ships that they could’ve used in World War 2.
Lol pwned
In addition, what about all the money that wasn't wasted in the 1920s building ships that were not needed and were obsolete by the next World War anyway.
Ironic, is it not, that there is more actual history discussed on this UA-cam channel than is discussed on the actual HISTORY CHANNEL?
The history channel is the Hitler/Nazi channel. They are obsessed with the guy. At least they used to be when I still watched it.
Martin Mwondha It's been a long time since you've watched it. The history channel now has little to do with history of any kind.
+Martin Mwondha I can kind of understand why they were. WWII was the most heavily documented war of the modern era. It was possible, even into the 1990s, to speak to actual survivors and videotape the interviews. And Hitler, of course, is probably the most prominent (notorious) figure of the 20th century, and it's true the Nazi regime was certainly involved with many curious activities - weird technologies, mysticism, massive intrigue within its ranks, and so on.
But as Edwin Minty pointed out, it's been probably ten years since the history channel had anything to do with actual history. Now I call it the tinfoil hat channel.
It is not.
It is a coincidence.
That's the joy of competition.
Not quite true that aircraft carriers were unregulated. While there was no limit on vessel size, there was a limit on total tonnage of aircraft carriers. The conversion of capital ships under construction by Japan and U.S. lead to those ships being unnecessarily heavy per unit and subsequent purpose built carriers were made much smaller to provide for as many carriers as possible within the total tonnage allowed. So the total limit then indirectly limited the vessel sizes past the conversion phase.
True. However, aircraft carriers were actually limited by individual size to 27,000 tons (except for the carrier conversions which could be as large as 33,000 tons) with both limits listed in Article IX.
This is a great episode. I especially appreciate the fact that you kept in under 10 minutes and brought out a large number of interesting facts that I was unaware of about the Washington Navy conference. Great job sir!
Great episode. The WNT is also how Destroyers got their nickname "Tin Cans" because their light weight armor to conform with the Treaty was said by sailors to be no thicker than a tin can.
Thank you for your informed, interesting and wide ranging topics. I hope you gain many subscriptions. You are most deserving.
thank you for this. i'd always heard of the washington naval treaty more as references, and this was a great overview of the topic, that not many seem to cover.
A great video as always! Thank you
I also LUV history. In very short segments you convey a whole lot of info. Thanks!
Great vid! A book which may have lead to Japan’s problems with the US was Yardley’s book “American Black Chamber” which spelled out the U S Army cryptographic work in WW 1 and through the 1920s until US Sec. War shut it down. He shut it down because “gentlemen don’t read other gentlemen’s mail”. This how Japan found out their radio traffic had been intercepted.
Lunch time learning. Thanks again for the great video.
Thanks History Guy - true stories are the best stories, and you have thousands!
This is my favorite channel on UA-cam - Keep up the good work! 😎🥂😎
@Historyguy I love the fact that you have so many videos on warfare. I have been interested in the history of war since my teens 40 years ago. Cheers, Russ
You act naturally in front of the camera, you look professional, and you speak with authority.
I really enjoy your series. I am a student of history and I find your episodes very educational. Thank you for what you do.
I love history
James khwai then this is the channel for you!
Dylan Wolcott then this is the channel for you too!
I love the future more, and it is for this reason I am so keen on the past.
Well played!
Winston Churchill so despised the Washington Treaty that publicly declared that Great Britain would be better served to simply declare war on the United States. Fortunately for us, Churchill was, at the time, a political pariah.
@Frank Mueller - Churchill was so right to despise the treaty.
On the up side, we got some pretty efficiently designed ships of all sizes. For example, the Nelson and South Carolina class battleships.
When I watch a topic I don't care much on just because it's you and I know ill learn a lot more than just about a conference, tks history guy
Super story, nice job
Love the Pensacola class at the 5:00 mark. Can't tell if it's the Pensy or the Salt Lake City, though.
I'm really enjoying your videos.
History Guy
I have very much enjoyed your videos that I have seen, they are informative and well delivered and I appreciate the effort you put into them for your viewers. One thing that I have noticed about UA-cam channels of this sort is that they say little about the owner of the channel, can you tell us a little more about your background and how you came to your obviously wide ranging knowledge of history?
The simple version is that my father spent his time watching War Documentaries and John Wayne movies and it rubbed off on me. I earned a bachelor's degree in History from the University of Colorado in 1989.
Well made, subscribed.
2:04 But the US Navy was global, whereas the IJN only needed to sail the Pacific and Indian Oceans. Thus, the IJN had parity where it mattered.
The US navy was not global then, the RN was. Yet it is ment to defend the world with the same number of ships that the US was using to defend a much small area :(
Incorrect, because the US could move it's atlantic fleet at any point and therefore have almost double the number of ships to counter the IJN. Its not like the UK was ever going to become an enemy to the US. This was designed from the beginning to keep potential enemy at a "manageable" number.
@@fortytwobraeckman2553 The US had ambitions, at least the political class. However defence spending was very unpopular at the times. this was a workaround for the US.
@@fortytwobraeckman2553; yes, although it US Navy was a two Ocean Navy, it's job was to protect the US coast line and US possessions in the Pacific. Whereas the Royal Navy not only had to protect Great Briton, it also had to protect the Empire.
@@artankayd but as WWII demonstrated, it was unlikely that a Pacific War would be fought in a vacuum. The U.S. was never free to transfer it's entire fleet to the Pacific. Even if Germany had not declared war after Pearl Harbor, the U.S. would have needed to keep a significant portion of it's ships in the Atlantic.
Brings to mind two suggested topics. The USN Northampton Cruisers. The most beautiful class of navy ships ever built and how the US "showed the flag" in the interwar years. Even the Marine contingents on them were hand picked for their height and physical presence. And a complete episode on Charles Evan Hughes, one of the most famous and influential Americans no one has ever heard of.
The US was too honest, and didn't cheat (for the most part.) For that honest, sailors would die. Our 10k ton "treaty cruisers" both heavy (8" guns) and light (6") were such a design compromise, that they were unable to take the kind of punishment that later cruisers (i.e. CLEVELAND and BALTIMORE classes) routine sustained and survived. The most notable exception to this was the lucky SAN FRANCISCO, that survived First Guadalcanal by luck and the skill of her crew (as noted by the number of MOH and Navy Crosses handed out to her crew.)
The USS New Orleans is also a noteworthy exception. She survived Pearl Harbor, a devastating torpedo hit, and kamikaze attacks. She was the recipient of 18 battle stars and numerous other awards. She deserves to be remembered
The "New Orleans" class heavy cruisers Treaty displacement upon completion exceeded Treaty (and legal) limits by 5%. They were also specifically designed to withstand 8" gunfire at an angle 60 degrees off the beam at expected engagement ranges of 20,000 yards to 30,000 yards. The record of the US Treaty cruisers showed a reasonable ability to withstand gunfire, including 14" HE shells. What could not be predicted or designed against was the superior Japanese torpedoes with their heavier warheads, the submarine 21" Type 95 using an 880lbs warhead and the Type 93 carried by destroyers and cruisers with its 1,088lbs warhead. Not even the USS Montana class could have withstood more than a couple of hits from Type 93 torpedoes, which happened to a number of US cruisers. The "Cleveland" class cruisers were a direct descendant of the "Brooklyn" class, the "Brooklyn" class coming in at 5% under Treaty limits until the USS St.Louis and Helena, which exceeded Treaty limits by 5%. The "Clevelands", were designed under the Second London Treaty after the US invoked the escalation clause as a repeat of the "Brooklyns" at 10,000 tons standard displacement, but by 1943 regularly exceeded that displacement by 10%, such that actions had to be taken later in the war to maintain stability, such as removing a catapult. If US sailors died for any reason, it was not the design of their ships but the lack of hard, realistic training prior to the war and a failure of a leadership still trapped in peacetime routine.
Also, a brief word since you mentioned the Mogami class cruisers: The Japanese did initially make at least a tacit attempt to obey the treaty limits on that class, including using hull plating that was thinner than it should have been, providing virtually no armor protection, and making it one of the first major warship classes with an all-welded construction to save weight on rivets. The result, however, was that the hull was too weak and flimsy to stand up to high speed operation, the Mogami's raison d'etre, and resulted in major cracks appearing on the hull at weld joints after high speed trials. And you know you've screwed up as a naval architect when you're new cruiser is in danger of sinking itself simply by going too fast. Ultimately, the IJN did refit the Mogami class, strengthening the hull and adding more armor once it was made clear that they didn't give a toss about the Washington & London treaties anymore.
They also first equipped the Mogami with nine 155mm guns, which would later be replaced by six, heavier, 203mm guns.
Welding rods and their coatings were primitive at the time, and gas welding is insufficient for armor. This continued into WWII. You can read of Liberty ships breaking in two. (Their success was due to quantity, not quality. Don't get an exaggerated idea of the quality of WWII equipment unless it's a firearm (highly refined over centuries). Welding seemed to work best for the US whose welding industry was advanced for the time. The influence of welding tech spanned ships, tanks and mundane but vital equipment like Bailey bridges (still produced today).
@@lourencoalmada1305 Actually it was fifteen 155mm guns in five three gun mounts which were replaced by ten 203mm guns.
@@michaelsnyder3871 Yeah, I'm so used to the conventional 9x155mm and 6x203mm guns layout that I misspelled...
Actually the Japanese cheated from the very start. The published Treaty displacement for IJNS Akagi and IJNS Kaga was 26,900 tons. A review of the displacement figures of these ships when rebuilt show that the actual Treaty displacement was over 30,000 tons. The Japanese could have used the (slightly) legal method that the USN used to justify the 36,000 ton Treaty displacement of USS Lexington and Saratoga by counting 3,000 tons as that tonnage allowed by Treaty to be added to "existing" ships (since the two were conversions) for defense against submarines and air attack. But even then, the two Japanese ships would have been heavier than their published displacement. The Japanese also continued to "cheat" after rebuilding ships by publishing the design Treat displacement rather than the ACTUAL Treaty displacement. And all the Japanese capital ship upgrades completed while the Japanese were still under the Treaty (pre 31 December 1936) exceeded the allowed 3,000 tons.
Good stuff Maynard.
Excellent.
I don't buy the argument that battleships were obsolete before WW2 even started. If you go back through all of the battleships that were sunk or severely damaged most all of the causes were from having inadequate air defenses or were used negligently. Such as the British sending two capitol ships across the open ocean without any air cover and equipped with only a few obsolete WW1 era AA guns. Or the Hood trying to take on the very lethal and modern Bismark. Most of the largest battleships in Japan couldn't have their anti-aircraft gunners on deck while they fired the main guns leaving them incredibly vulnerable to air attacks. The US Navy didn't have that problem. When you look at battleships that served with distinction they came under air attacks too and didn't get sunk. They had sufficient air defenses with excellent crews. They were no more obsolete that cruisers or destroyers. Not having good guns on a ship doesn't mean the entire type of ship is obsolete.
Not disputing your input. I believe the statement that BBs were obsolete was due to the fact that carriers had made the types of surface battles BBs were designed for obsolete and thus BBs were of little use other than for shore bombardment. Sure, the last US BBs were better at AA defense but the art of war was still passing them by.
Look at Pearl Harbor, those ships were inadequately armed for air attack and four of them (California, West Virginia, Oklahoma, Arizona) were among the eight ships sunk and a fifth (Nevada) was one of the two that were run aground to prevent sinking while the last three (Pennsylvania, Maryland and Tennessee) all needed extensive repairs. Also all the pre-Pearl Harbor USN battleships were not capable of exceeding 25-28 knots speed while the pre-Pearl Harbor USN fleet carriers were all capable of running at 32+ knots, even when not launching aircraft (minimum speed of 30 knots was required to launch aircraft even when sailing into the wind, more if the wind was from any other quarter). Also, I believe RN Force Zed had an aircraft carrier attached, but it had been damaged when it had run into an underwater shallows a few days earlier and had been forced to return to port for repairs, leaving the rest of the force HMS Prince of Wales and HMS Repulse plus escort destroyers alone.
You have an absolutely terrible habit of making and posting videos that I absolutely love watching.!!!
Thank you for all you do
Excellent!
Good video. Two quibbles: Although they were wrong about the importance of Battleships, they all thought at that time that they were the power naval units. Also, as you pointed out the treaty harmed our readiness and thus invited Japan to attack us. The lesson is that one must assume the Mongols will be Mongols (i.e. don't tempt the bad guys with weakness). And yes I described Imperial Japan as evil. If you don't believe me ask the Chinese about it.
YES! History and warships, a great combination.
I remember reading somewhere, I can't remember where, that although the Washington Naval Treaty didn't prevent WWII, it may have prevented a 1928 war between the US and Britain. Interesting thought.
Anytime you go after the tools of war you are 'trusting' that the bad guys are doing the same. They never do. Not Understanding human nature as it is rather than how we'd like it to be is at the root of all military treaties. This goes for your personal protection as well as nations. Another great video!
I enjoy your work and want to note how funny you can be, thanks. To my surprise I think I found an error at 3:15 when the ratification year was stated as 1943, I'm guessing you meant 1923.
I noticed that also. Great channel and very informative.
I did, too. Yes, I like it too.
I also wondered about that since by the date of August 1943 the US was building capital ships just as fast as possible
Me too. The Five Power Treaty was effective August 17, 1923 - 94 years ago at the time this was posted. I love your channel.
i noticed that as well and had to do a double take. It didn't sound right that Japan, Italy, the UK and the US would have agreed to a disarmament treaty in August 1943, or the heart of WW II . Though I imagine Harry Turtledove could write a fascinating novel about the ramifications of the event!
You are a great story teller! I think its worth mentioning that the aircraft carrier is primarily useful for attack as opposed to defense. Therefore the result of the treaty in increasing Japan's production of carriers also increase their temptation to attack Pearl Harbor.
Very fond of and impressed with your content! Vypo (voice typo) at 3:16? Wouldn't the treaties have been ratified in 19-TWENTY-3? Maybe my hearing is bad....
One of the problems with your analysis of the Treaty Era is that during the Treaty Era, the only people on Wake Island were Pan Am employees running a station for the Flying Clippers. The Wake Island military garrison did not exist until after 1939.
Japan also built the largest battleships in the world at the time. It was a blunder. 3 ships at 75,000 tons each = 225,000 tons of steel that could have built 5 aircraft carriers, but they were also the point of Japan's pride in having the biggest navy in the world.
Blunder is a strong reach. Carriers we're unproven technically or tactically.
Japan wasn't hurting for carriers. Japan's problem was pilots. The training pipeline was very slow, and veteran pilots were sent into combat over and over until they were killed, instead of rotating back as instructors like the USN did. At Leyte Gulf the IJN actually had carriers sent in with almost no planes just to act as decoys. The Yamato class battleships had problems of their own, being technically inferior and slower than the latest US designs, which had better fire control systems and could keep up speed with nuclear carriers into the 1990s, proving to be adaptable to modern systems upgrades.
@@RCAvhstape thank you for saving me the time to type out the exact same comment. By the later stages of the war Japan was flat out of pilots. Kamikaze pilots only had to learn how to take off and fly straight.
I believe the settling of the Alabama Claims was the first modern negotiated peace agreement without violence. It would make a great story about British involvement in the US Civil War. It covers many things like Lincoln's emphatic statement that slavery was an issue, thereby undermining English support to intervene on the Confederacy's side and it also helped get American petroleum a boost and was whaling industry set-back due to the CSN's commerce raiders like the CSS Shenandoah and CSS Alabama.
Of the three Naval limitation treaties - Washington (1922), 1st London (1930) and 2nd London (1936) - the most damaging for the British was the 1st London, then the 2nd London and the least damaging was the Washington Treaty.
While on paper the British did some hypothetical planning exercises for a possible naval confrontation with USN, basically the British considered such an event was unthinkable. Thus the loss of naval superiority over the USA was acceptable as long as the Royal Navy had the strength the face the next two (non-USA) strongest naval powers.
The Royal Navy's battle fleet contained capital ships that were on average less powerful, older, smaller and had suffered from years of arduous war service. Thus the Royal Navy was allowed to retain a larger numerical strength of battleships and battlecruisers and the age calculation of 20 years for the replacement live a capital ship was amended to allow 2 years of war serve to equal 2 years of peacetime service. The USN was allowed to have 3 battleships and the Japanese 2 battleships with 16-inch guns. As the UK had no 16-inch gun battleships, the Royal Navy was allowed build to new 16--inch battleships and on their entering service then scrap their 4 oldest 13.5-inch gun battleships. This resulted in the 4 Iron Duke battleships serving in the 4th Battle Squadron with Mediterranean Fleet to return to the UK. The 4th Battle Squadron was disbanded, 2 ships disposed of and the 2 serving battleship transferred the "Boy Seaman" sea going training squadron. It was a tribute to old "Victorian and Edwardian" values of building things to last, that the state of the British battleships and battlecruiser were by 1928 in far better condition than was expected.
Approximately a filth of initial enlistments into the Royal Navy was by 15-years olds. The professional long service nature of the Royal Navy encourage these "boys" to look upon the Royal Navy a life long career. These "boys" were highly valued in the sea going fleet and were consider better trained and dedicated than their adult enlisted shipmates. These "boys" seagoing training battleships would at times join the Atlantic Fleet (later re-named the Home Fleet) for fleet exercises and live firing target shoots providing the "boy" seamen realistic training and experience.
For the 40 years prior to World War Two the Royal Navy's requirement for cruisers for service with main fleets, detached squadron service and trade defence was a minimum of 70 to 100 warship cruisers (depending on size and age), 50 armed merchant cruisers (converted passenger-cargo liners of at least 12,000 tons and 14 knots) and 10 armed boarding steamers (converted passenger-cargo liners of approx. 6,000 tons). This of course not cover the much larger numbers of destroyers, sloops (trade defence escorts), patrol vessels, minesweepers etc.
The Royal Navy's operational commitments in wartime required very large numbers of ships as opposed to individually powerful ships. Also the British were advocates of a balanced fleet of ships of mixed types and capabilities was of greater power than a handful of "super ships". To provided those numbers the Royal Navy had a large fleet of ships in its maintained reserve that could be brought into service at relative short notice. By rotating ships from the active fleet to the reserve fleet, and/or local defence and training flotillas and squadrons the British greatly reduced the wear and tear on the ship's hulls, machinery and equipment, thus very greatly extending the ships lives. This also help with reservist training as upon war mobilization the Royal Navy would almost overnight have to double its trained seagoing manpower.
END PART 1
Part 2 - the 1st London Naval Treaty -
US Republican and British Labour governments induced treaty that almost cost the UK WW2.
Geoffrey Mowbray there was not enough time to go into detail on the two London treaties. But they were derivatives of the Washington treaty, extending the length of the Washington limits and then further limiting cruisers and destroyers. Without Italy and Japan's participation the Second treaty had less success in limiting ship building, especially since the Americans insisted on the "escalator clause."
It did, however, include the submarine protocol, which might be the most effective long term effect of the three treaties.
G’day History Guy...this was the first one of your episodes that I have watched and as I am currently studying this period, was very helpful as a precursor to some more in depth study. One thing you said caught my attention, however, as potentially incorrect. You state that the Washington Naval Conference produced the World’s first arms limitation agreement, which I believe is inaccurate. The Rush-Bagot agreement after the War of 1812 between Great Britain and the US agreed to demilitarise the Great Lakes and it is my understanding that this is widely held to be the first such agreement. And that one was successful, unlike the Washington Treaty.
Actually there is a subtle but important distinction. You are correct that it was not the first arms control agreement- and, in fact, those go back to antiquity. What was unique was that it was the first arms control conference- that is, it was the first time that a group of governments met for the sole purpose of arms control. Other agreements, such as the Rush-Bagot agreement of 1817, which is usually considered to be the first arms control treaty of the modern industrial era, were negotiated as part of a peace settlement or to settle other claims (such as the 1871 Treaty of Washington.)
When it came to carriers I was under the impression that there were some limitations. Besides total tonnage, there was a limit on how much it could displace (somewhere around 33,000 tons I think) and that if a carrier was under 10,000 tons it didn't count. Japan tried to exploit the loophole with the Ryujo at 8,000 tons.
Not related, but a story on The Great Emu War would be fantastic.
The Washington Treaty also placed limits on aircraft carrier size and total allowed tonnage. (Articles IX and X)
A good overview and restrained interpretation. One question is the date of ratification of treaties. At 3:13 it is stated they were ratified in August 1943, when one can assume they were ratified in 1923?
The most fascinating naval engagement, that I can think of is the Battle of Chesapeake. Had the French, lost this naval engagement, the result of the American Revolution, would have a different outcome.
The second (and my favorite), is when Prime Minister Winston Churchill, ordered the British Navy, to open-fire on French warships, before Germany could use them to their advantage.
G-D. I love history.
ua-cam.com/video/uXDGzmOkC5g/v-deo.html
I have not done the Attack on Mers-el-Kébir yet, but it is on my list.
What is your theme song? It sounds so familiar.
How, oh how, oh how oh how oh how, can you write a history of the Washington Treaty without any reference to Alfred Thayer Mahan??
As much of a relief as it may be that he has been forgotten, he is influential enough in that milieu, to deserve to be remembered.
Peace through strength
I question the date of August 1943 given at 3:13 for ratification by which time the US was building capital ships just as fast as possible.
I have to disagree that the Washington, London and Second London naval treaties were a failure. The 5-5-3 tonnage ratio between Britain-US-Japan for capital ships held until 1937 and aircraft carriers were held to similar limitations. Until then everyone cheated on cruiser and carrier displacement ("standard" v "full load" so most were designed & built with 20-25% more displacement in mind). Japan converted battlecruisers to carriers (Kaga & Akagi) but so did the US (Lexington & Saratoga) and Britain (Courageous, Glorious and Furious) all allowed under the limitations of Washington.
When Japan failed to sign Second London in 1937 an escalator clause went into effect which allowed US & Britain to up-gun new battleships to 16" and the start of the war in Europe in 1939 effectively ended treaty limitations. War was on and Britain and the US won the naval and merchant shipbuilding contest within a few short years, the facts of which Yamamoto attempted to warn his government in advance but was ignored.
Without the Washington & London treaties an unchecked naval arms race in the 1920s would have led to war with Japan 5-10 years earlier. After four years of unrestrained naval building Japan had to strike in 1941 before the US pushed anymore warships into the water. Delaying the naval arms race delayed the outbreak of war. That's success.
This appears To be a dead debate but I disagree. According to Patrick Buchanan, Washington naval treaty was not only a failure but a cause of World War II, As it infuriated Japan I left US and Britain in a weaker defensive position.
@@stephenpowstinger733 Buchanan is right that it infuriated Japan but that's not what started the war. Japan's empire-by-military-conquest started the war--first in China then SE Asia and beyond. Japanese acceptance of the treaty was pragmatic. If Tokyo had had the same industrial capacity & wealth as the US & Britain they would have insisted on and received 5-5-5 parity. They knew they couldn't. Nor could they afford the expensive naval arms race that would have ensued.
By signing the treaty Japan limited growth of the British & US navies far more than her own. US & Britain signed to avoid an expensive arms race. All three got what they wanted. It's no surprise Japan was first to exit the treaty. Naval shipbuilding exploded. US industrial strength alone destroyed Japan 3 1/2 years after Pearl Harbor.
WWII in Europe and the Pacific were caused entirely two by expansionist, racist military dictatorships--Germany & Japan.
Due to this treaty the hulls of the Lexington and Saratoga were converted from heavy cruisers to aircraft carriers CV 2and CV 3 my dad served aboard Sara from 1943 until her demise at Bikini in 1946 remaining assigned through her refit following damage at Iwo Jima it's family history that makes world history so memorable
Actually, the Lexington and Saratoga (CV-2 and CV-3) were converted from Battlecruiser hulls. If memory serves, they were designed and constructed as an answer to the advent of the HMS Hood for the British Royal Navy.
@@wglattli sounds right
Hi excellent videos, just noticed at approx 3.15 you say 1943 instead of 1923?
you are correct- my mistake.
I would like to know more about the first all black fighter squadron
The Second London Naval Treaty was more of a factor for the war as it showed Japan's intentions to continue their militaristic expansionists policies. You have to remember also that at the time the United States was spending the lowest amount ever on military spending as a percentage of GNP. There was no 'peace through strength' and why not attack the USA when they weren't spending much on the military and were woefully unprepared.
Have you ever done a segment on Col. Philip Cochran from the Army Air Force in WW2? he was quite a colorful persona with the upshot being he was the model for "Flip Corkin" the comic TERRY and THE PIRATES and later in the Steve Canyon comic as "General Philerie"
Start here at en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philip_Cochran
The limitations cost us dearly around Guadalcanal.
Talking about treaties. Why not do a segment on the Mount Washington Hotel, in New Hampshire. A lot of world history up there.
1899 it was debated and predicted on the floor of the US Senate---War with Japan in thirty years. It took 42 yrs, but the reason was the same US Navy control of the sea lanes past the newly conquered Phillipines, controling oil shipment by sea from Indonesia to Japan.
I think you'll find that there were earlier international conferences in America before the Washington Naval Treaty. The earliest I know of is the International Meridian Conference that set the World's Prime Meridian at Greenwich. This conference took place in Washington in October 1884 and had 41 delegates from 25 nations. The conference was called by President Arthur and it was the American delegate who suggest Greenwich as the Royal Observatory had been the leading body on the longitude problem.
You should do the battle of Machias Bay during the Revolutionary war between the HMS Magaretta and the colonial slope Unity. Apparently this was the first never battles of the Revolutionary War.🤷♂️
Question: was any Japanese naval expansion 1898-1922 in reaction to the US presence in the Philippines?
Could you do a show on Chester Nimitz.
Possibly
Or Admiral Spruance
It seems to me that Japan began evading the limits of the Washington Treaty almost as soon as the ink of the signatories had dried. The fleet limits bring to mind how professional sports teams here in the US juggle their overall budgets and which players they want. Arms control depends entirely on the honesty of each nation. The enforcement of disarmament can only be by war. Thus, it has yet to be successful.
Did the WNC specify how compliance with its terms would be verified?
The treaty was very clear in describing how to comply, exactly listing which ships each power could keep and detailing the process by which ships must be broken-up. But the treaty itself makes no provisions for how it would be verified by the signatories, who apparently assumed that everyone would do as they agreed.
5:25. Who was arguing that BBs were obsolete at the time of this conference?
"artwork depicting warships, which some viewers may find disturbing" :: rolls eyes ::
I have always thought Warren Harding a bit under rated as a president and have cited his hosting and support of the Washington Naval Treaty among other accomplishments as evidence.
Can anyone identify the battleship at 2:25?
Simple "what if?" question. The United States effectively forced the British to end the 20 year old Anglo-Japanese alliance with this treaty. Had the UK and Japan remained allies, would WWII in the Pacific have happened? The end of the alliance led Japan down the road of militarism and isolationism. Had this not happened, could Japan have been our loyal allies against the Germans in WWII as they had been in WWI?
Dean Stuart that is an interesting counterfactual, and just as interesting is that there was an Attempt by Britain to get America to join the alliance. My guess, though, is that competing interests is China and throughout the pacific would have caused a spilt absent the US demand. Relations between Japan and Britain were already strained before the Washington Naval Conference, and the Commonwealth, notably Canada, were clearly wary of Japan at the 1921 Imperial conference. The alliance was really about opposition to Russian influence, and that concern was fading, undercutting the entire rationale. The rise of militarism and ultranationalism during the Shōwa period was driven by a number of factors, including the Great Depression, and not primarily by the lack of allies. It just seems unlikely that the alliance would have survived.
It would not have mitigated Japanese feeling that it needed land and resources to dominate the Pacific.
@@davidharris6581 EXACTLY!
Japan had goals to dominate the entire Pacific rim. They had attacked China and Korea and when America embargoed their fuel to try to stop their aggression, they started their planning for Pear Harbor...
A humorous corallary: The Making of Star Trek, 1968, contains a story by Gene Roddenberry in the section about George Takei and Sulu. Apparently, an Oriental Protection Association protested about halfway through the first season that Sulu wasn't getting as many girls as Kirk.
So Roddenberry, with George's permission, claimed that they were following the treaty and thus for every five girls Kirk got and five that McCoy got, a Sulu would get three, thus paralleling the US, British and Japanese battleships. The OPA did not respond, but they apparently called for no boycott.
There are a couple of problems. One is that Roddenberry actually cited the Kellogg-Briand Treaty, not the Washington Naval Conference. Chalk it up to ignorance.
Another thing is that George is now known to be gay. But I'm sure he thinks Sulu is hetero and thus should get an appropriate number of girls. He objected when they turned the reboot Sulu gay.
Another side note; in Takei's bio it just says that he lived in the Boyle Heights district of LA until WWII, when "the family moved to Arkansas". Strictly correct, but they were in fact among the interned Japanese-Americans.
Did the Washington Naval treaty have an expiration date? Or did this beginning of World War II expired or invalid? Am wondering what was the last stipulation of the treaty obeyed?
December 31, 1936. Then they had the Second London Naval Treaty which Japan did not sign on to.
One wonders if a significant naval buildup would have helped alleviate unemployment during the Great Depression. Or even prevented much of a depression at all. War, and preparation for war, usually helps the economy.
2:12 I thought even less than %18,about %10 instead of that.
question. why did Rome fall? you may not be able to answer that in ten minutes but a synopsis would be nice,
Short answer germans...long answer germans,huns, complacency
If there's enough of a story to add to your maritime history videos, how about 1936 Bermuda, and their St. David's Battery 'accidently' bombarding the Columbian destroyer Antiquia, causing an international incident that could have started a war...
The Pacific War could be called the Carrier and Heavy Cruiser War. The Japanese would have been much better off it they had given up on battleships, but hindsight...
MakeMeThinkAgain I had a pitched discussion a while back with a guy who thought exactly like the Japanese did - he was absolutely convinced that battleships should not only be a part of a modern navy, but the major emphasis OF such a navy. He had no clue of the hideous costs of building, maintaining, and operating battleships in the modern world, and how limited their capabilities are in comparison to modern technology. He was completely enamored with the scale of the guns, and never once did he realize that those guns, impressive though they were, aren't effective for more than about 20 miles or so. Guided missile cruisers can do the same thing today and never get within range of the enemy's weapons. Carrier-based planes can take out targets hundreds of miles away without ever exposing the ship to an enemy's fleet.
Battleships and heavy tanks have the same appeal and the same weaknesses. They are great things to have at a particular place, but they lack the ability to cover a large area. And they are not immune from common battlefield threats. A battleship is not going to contribute to a war in Afghanistan for example, but carriers can. And P-47s or A-10s can swarm any area within range of their bases in a fraction of the time a tank can move to the same place.
I can understand how the naval officers of the 1930s could have been slow to understand the advantage of naval aviation, but it's hard to understand how anyone with any familiarity with the Pacific War could still not get this. You can't understand the Solomons Campaign, for example, without understanding this point as otherwise all the Japanese tactics make no sense at all.
Right!? You don't even need to look at the Solomons campaign; one only needs to look at Pearl Harbor to see how devastatingly effective carriers are. The Japanese could never have pulled that off with battleships - at least, not with the impunity they enjoyed in the carrier attack. The carriers gave them the element of surprise, and the ships were safely out of reach of US weapons.
True, but in the Solomons the IJN tried to avoid exposing their ships to aircraft by scheduling all their operations at night. No matter how strong their surface forces were, they assumed that they couldn't compete within air range of Henderson Field. They didn't even try to fight during the day. All because of air power.
Yup. Agree 100 percent. History and results are hard to argue with.
I hate War .......But I love studying it !
...You must have made an error at the 3:15 mark. The treaty must have been ratified in 1923 since we were at war in 1943.
Would be nice to know some things, like your real name and credentials! LOL...not that I don't trust you, but Iv'e been following your snippets of history for a long time now...
The failure of the treaty to to regulate the development of submarine fleets has some interesting historical aspects. The Japanese, iroically an island nation based on reliance of imports from abroad colonies or soone to be conoies, had leaned from World War I that Britain was almost defeated or at least neutralized during World War I by German submarine attoacks. I am fascinated as to why submarines never were part of the treaties. When World War II began for the United States the Japanese had an edge in submarines in the Pacific and the Germans were picking off over 400 American merchant marine shps off the Atlantic side of the war. Only when the Americans and Britosh figured out a way tp conduct convoy across the Atlantic to supply Brtitain did the British have a chnce to win the war against the Germans. As for the Americans, fortunately there were not enough Japanese submarines to change the balance of naval power in the much larger Pacific which ended up being dettermined by air power launched first from aircraft carriers and later bases obtained by the iislnd hopping campaigns which allowed American long range bombers to carpet bomb Japan into submission (those tow nuclear bombs did help as well).
Please lower the intro music volume,
Last comment, I swear. Regarding the French counterbalance to the Italians in the Mediterranean that Britain so hoped for, this belief failed to take into account the fact that France's own naval construction, and indeed her military development in the Interwar Period in general, was a mess. At the time, the French military was deeply embroiled in a military-industrial-political complex; French armaments industries would propose new designs for impressive superweapons to the military, which they would convince to accept and fund the development of often through political pressure. Said superweapons would then drag through decades of slow, often virtually non-existent R&D, with the industries soaking up military funding all the time without presenting any appreciable results, and with the military finding difficulty with getting the necessary political support to cancel draining or wasteful projects. An example of this from the land war side was the Char 2C heavy tank, which began development at the end of the First World War, but was only barely ready for combat by the beginning of the Second. Another example was the Normandie class of French battleships, which had begun construction as early as 1912, but were constantly plagued by design changes and bureaucratic delays to the point that none were finished until after the First World War, with one of the class being scrapped and another being converted into an aircraft carrier that was itself so terrible that it finished its life as an aircraft transport having never seen active combat.
About the Normandie class battleship, the reason they (and honestly the bulk of French pre-WWI naval ambitions) weren't finished was that during WWI Germany occupied that Northeastern part of France... which just happened to contain a significant chunk of the French military industries. Also during WWI a lot of dockyard workers were drafted into the army, and overall the bulk of naval efforts were diverted to the army (because holy shit the Germans are right over there). WWI did a number on French naval construction, to the point where they bought Japanese destroyers. If not for the war the French was actually getting their shit sorted out pre-WWI.
(reference: Conway's all the World's Fighting Ships 1906-1921)
This is certainly true. I can add to that as well that another factor in slowing the Normandies' contruction was that almost all of the main 12in guns meant for them were instead seized by the French army and converted to railway guns. You're quite right in pointing out that the land invasion by Germany was a strong factor in lessening the importance of naval development and construction for France.
However, that does not entirely account for the glacial rate of development and reconstruction after the war, or for the frankly bizarre designs thought up by the French Naval Staff; have you seen an internal layout of the Dunkerque class battleships for example? I've never seen a warship layout like it; separate engine rooms sandwiched between boiler rooms, fuel of varying types stored willy nilly in its double bottom?
And since we're throwing sources around, much of my info, both about the Normandie class and the Mogami class in another comment came from "The World's Worst Warships" by Anthony Preston.
Hm...
Looking at the next volume of Conway (1922-1946), it was mentioned that "... and even after 1918 the lingering fear of German militarism ensured that the Army would have first call on the national defense budget." So obviously that's not helping matters. Yes the French navy got repeatedly shafted by the government in terms of budget allocated, although despite their budget being set year to year the navy still have an overall goal first set in 1924 (the 1924 Programme, which of course got reject that year). Not to mention that the damages France suffered in WWI (both men & materials) cannot be overstated. Due to the way the French draft worked a lot of skilled labor were drafted into the army in WWI, and a lot of them died in the trenches. Hard to recover from that kind of thing easily.
As for the Dunkerque class, alternating engine & boiler rooms arraignments is not all that uncommon*, as for the various fuel it appears that they are part of the underwater protection system: "The underwater protection consisted of air and fuel compartments bounded on the inboard side by the torpedo bulkhead and outboard by a compartment filled with a rubber-based, water-excluding compound." Of course whether that's a good idea or not is something else, but there is a purpose to the madness. Generally Conway mentioned that by the late 1930s the French had a reasonably modern navy: "By 1939 the French fleet had been successfully reconstructed, although the numbers - and in a few cases the designs - fell short of what the Navy felt was necessary. In some instances, such as the contre-torpilleurs or the Surcouf, the ships were highly original, but there were a number of areas in which the French Navy was poorly prepared for modern warfare. One was the lack of an adequate light AA weapon; the Mod 33 37mm gun designed to replace the semi-automatic Mod 25 did not enter service before the outbreak of the war. This inadequacy was common enough in other navies, but the lack of anti-submarine equipment, and in particular the few flotilla craft fitted with asdic, is less easy to explain."
I have been told that the "The World's Worst Warships" was closer to pop history, although Anthony Preston is a top notch military historian (funny enough he wrote the Great Britain section of the 1906-1921 volume of Conway). FYI Conway's all the World's Fighting Ships are reference books (though mostly written during the 1980s, except for parts of the 1947-1995 volume obviously).
*for an example in another country's navy: Italian Zara class cruiser: (going from front to rear of ship) no 1 boiler room, forward engine room (turbine to starboard, No 2 boiler room, Nos 3 & 4 boiler rooms, after engine room (turbine to port), no 5 boiler room
-
Didn't the British take pains to scuttle the French Navy to prevent the Germans from getting their hands on it? It couldn't have been that bad if that were the case. Additionally, the French Navy couldn't even begin to counterbalance anything once the country capitulated to Hitler. That was certainly not an issue of equipment.
Si vis pacem,para bellum(if you want peace,prepare for war)
Did I hear right...at around 3:10 I hear..."..the conference resulted in three major treaties and several bilateral treaties which were ratified in August of 1943".. 1943? Is this a MISTAKE? You are talking about a conference in 1921..and ratification of treaties in 1943.....
For me Washington is very sad event.
To anybody interested, I can suggest some other youtube channels that are heavy with history, such as Dr Alexander Clarke and WW2TV, among others.
Was this under the League of Nations?
I "read" that the Washington Treaty, while allowing all of your results, may have prevented say a 1926 Anglo-American naval war.
That is an interesting and oft discussed counterfactual, and not one without reason. I think that the fear was more the cost of a building competition, but such an arms race certainly risks war. And Great Britain was originally allied with Japan. I think, though, that war between the US and Great Britain would have been extremely unlikely after the First World War.
This sort of thing is always a fun discussion. I would say that Hood would have been classified a battleship in any other navy, and the British battlecruiser distinction had little meaning by then. Prince of Wales was a battleship, and yet was unable to impact the battle. And the Price Of Wales went on to prove how vulnerable battleships were to aircraft. It is not all about ship class.
Neither world war became the clash of heavy ships that was envisioned. Jutland was not a modern Trafalgar. Japan's Yamato and Musashi were extraordinary, built specifically to outgun everything at sea, and they got little from them. It is left to military history buffs to speculate how these ships would have performed had they been used differently.
I remember reading that the Treaty did help ease growing tensions between the USA and Britain, tensions stemming from the financial imbalance of massive wartime debts the Brits owed the Americans. It was part of how the Royal Navy ended up accepting naval parity the "upstart" USA..
By the way wasn't the Hood a submersible? :-p
If I may humbly point out, your point that the building of aircraft carriers was unregulated is somewhat incorrect; later amendments to the 1921 Washington Naval Treaty would include aircraft carriers, imposing similar tonnage limits as with other capital ships. As a result of these limits, both the US and Japan attempted to build so-called "treaty carriers", carriers that were the maximum size possible while remaining within the limitations of the Washington Treaty.
From a technical and service standpoint, these treaty carriers were pretty much universally terrible; the USS Wasp, the US Navy's treaty carrier, was too small to operate efficiently and had virtually no armor protection for her stored aircraft or their fuel or munitions, even being forced to include bizarre design elements like the first deck edge elevator that only supported part of the aircraft, all in an effort to force the engineering equivalent of a quart into a pint pot. A similar failure was the Japanese carrier IJN Ryujo. Like the Wasp, the Ryujo was much too small for efficient operation, was largely unarmored, and her flight deck was too low to the water to safely launch and recover aircraft, especially in rough seas. Ultimately, both the Wasp and the Ryujo's design flaws, a direct result of the Washington Treaty, would lead to both ships being lost with great loss of life during the Second World War.
From the standpoint of a historian of naval design and architecture, the Washington Naval Treaty can be viewed as possibly one of the worst developments in naval history, leading to a rash of half-baked, sub-par, filler designs meant to satisfy treaty requirements, not to be effective, or even safe warships. The treaty also reinforced international racist sentiments against nations that were regarded as inferior to the US and Britain, Japan being particularly hard struck as it had allied with both nations during the First World War and was now being treated once more as an inferior power. It is small wonder then that those nations hardest hit by Washington's cut-down, such as Japan and Germany, would later openly defy the treaty with the construction of some of the largest warships ever built, including the battleships Bismarck and Yamato.
sirrliv correct- by excluding carriers below 10,000 ton displacement from the national tonnage limits the treaty sparked a boom in carrier construction.
Are you positive it was the first arms control conference in history?
Up gunning a battleship in an emergency is not easy. It took more time to make the big guns then to build the ship itself. If the guns didn't already exist the conflict could be over it before they were ready. In my opinion you glossed over the US insistence the British-Japanese Naval agreement had to be revoked. The Japanese saw this as a British betrayal as the Imperial Japan Navy had protected British empire ships east of Suez during WW. Allowing RN and Commonwealth ships relocated to the Atlantic and Mediterranean. The Japanese Naval command viewed this escort duty as trivial and therefore insulting, an attitude they took into WW2 to Americans advantage.
Another history factoid I was not aware of that impacted WWII. Off Topic, You Sir should be placed in charge of the History Channel. I use that name with a smirk on my face, "The Search For Bigfoot", "Swamp People" and "Pawn Stars", what a disgrace to the word "History".....People wonder why America is losing its intellectual edge???
Iam 23yrs
Did the Empire of Japan truly adhere to the terms of the Washington Treaty for any length of time before Japan openly renounced it in 1934? It sure does not seem to have done so.
Arms control strikes me as being fully as useless as gun control.