AH Challenge: Washington Naval Conference Collapse

[Sargon]

What would it take for the talks to fail? We know the US made efforts to intercept and read the various participants' communications, in particular Japanese ones, so they had a good idea of what their red lines were. However, assuming for some reason in an ATL this wasn't so possible, or was somehow discovered, or perhaps for some reason the Italian and/or French delegations decided to walk out.

In any event, even with the cryptological eavesdropping being as it was OTL, perhaps we can still examine what it would take for there to be no treaty signed and the consequences of such.


Sargon

 

[Peg Leg Pom]

However, assuming for some reason in an ATL this wasn't so possible, or was somehow discovered, or perhaps for some reason the Italian and/or French delegations decided to walk out.

I don't think either of those two walking out would end the talks. If both walked it might, but even that's doubtful. America and Britain are staying no matter what as neither country wants (or in the case of Britain can afford to) to pay for a naval building war between them, Japan is key if they walk you've just got an Anglo American agreement with the eventual building program to be determined later. Now what would get Japan to walk? They're already unhappy at not getting parity with The UK and US and the racial bias against them in Washington. If the diplomats are insulted, if some senators mouth off about "damn coolies getting above themselves" or some such rot a few too many times I could well see them walking out. Even the best diplomats can only take so much

 

[Sargon]

Well then, Japan walks out, I suppose it isn't completely impossible, but in that case what really does an Anglo-US agreement mean in terms of concerns about what the other powers are doing? We know Japan suffers the Great Kantō Earthquake and can't afford to build the ships planned, but no-one knows about the earthquake, and how much do the US and Britain know or are sure about the Japanese government's finances?

Anyway, the goal is to somehow cause the conference to collapse. Wouldn't be a challenge otherwise. 😉


Sargon

 

[Ambusher11]

I don't think either of those two walking out would end the talks. If both walked it might, but even that's doubtful.

In fact, the French and Italians didn't accept the main part of the 1930 London Naval Treaty (cruiser limitation) OTL since their demands weren't accepted (the French wanted an Anglo-American security guarantee, and the Italians wanted parity with the French). A similar walkout by the French and/or Italians would indeed be very unlikely to cause the Washington Naval Conference to collapse. You'd likely have to have major Anglo-American disagreement (which caused the collapse of the 1927 Geneva Naval Conference OTL) for the Washington Naval Conference to collapse.

 

[Schlock]

Have the Statute of Westminster introduced, ratified and then transfer a whole lot of ships to the Dominions prior to the treaty negotiations concluding.

 

[Thoresby]

I don't think either of those two walking out would end the talks. If both walked it might, but even that's doubtful. America and Britain are staying no matter what as neither country wants (or in the case of Britain can afford to) to pay for a naval building war between them, Japan is key if they walk you've just got an Anglo American agreement with the eventual building program to be determined later. Now what would get Japan to walk? They're already unhappy at not getting parity with The UK and US and the racial bias against them in Washington. If the diplomats are insulted, if some senators mouth off about "damn coolies getting above themselves" or some such rot a few too many times I could well see them walking out. Even the best diplomats can only take so much

As you say for the WNC to collapse you need Japan to walk out, but even if Japan does walk out we know that in 18 months time the 1923 Kanto Earthquake is going to happen and Japan's building plan is going to be stopped. At that point Britain still wants to cut spending, the US has turned isolationist and doesn't want to have to complete it's 1916 plans and the Japanese are broke, the perfect grounds for another go, only this time with (some) SoDaks, Lexington's, Tosa's and G3's getting grandfathered in.

 

[Dorknought]

There was quite a bit of friction within the Japanese delegation with the disagreement between Kato Tomosaburo and Kato Kanji possibly leading to a rupture and the withdraw of the Japanese. See: https://www.jstor.org/stable/44637473?seq=1

Without Japan then there would be no wider agreement on China which may lead to potential clashes in the 1920's. Japan would have to continue and probably complete Tosa's and all Amagi's but the later ships will be pushed out beyond the 1928 deadline. However the 8:8 policy would survive in some form (it is currently 4 Kongo, 4Fuso/Ise, 4Nagato/Tosa and 4 Amagi) , ie. 2 ships per year but 1 fast BB and 1 CA. The logical thing for the US would be to complete 4 Maryland, 2 Lexington, convert 2 to CV and cancel the last 2 and the 6 South Dakotas. Replace the South Dakotas with fast battleships re using as much material from the cancelled ships. The RN would press on with the G3 program and then replace all 13.5" gunned ships with a second tranche having no need for N3 as the US is not pursuing slow heavy armed battleships. The US and GB may come up with a separate agreement dissolving the A-J Alliance, recognition of the Open Door in China and parity in Naval forces and probably agreements on size and gun calibre. If the US wants to have 2:1 superiority over Japan then this is 2 BB and 2 CA every year for both USN and RN which is doable.