The Washington Naval Treaty of 1922 and its Consequences

Aftermath of World War IAftermath of World War I British Empire had world's largest, most powerful navyBritish Empire had world's largest, most powerful navy Followed closely by the United StatesFollowed closely by the United States More distantly by JapanMore distantly by Japan Powers beginning new capital-ship (battleships and battle-cruisers) construction programsPowers beginning new capital-ship (battleships and battle-cruisers) construction programs 1920, U.S. aiming for navy “second to none”1920, U.S. aiming for navy “second to none” Had already laid down keels for five battleships, four battle-cruisersHad already laid down keels for five battleships, four battle-cruisers Japan starting “8:8” programJapan starting “8:8” program Eight battleships, eight battle-cruisersEight battleships, eight battle-cruisers Background

Powers beginning new capital-ship (battleships and battle-cruisers) construction programsPowers beginning new capital-ship (battleships and battle-cruisers) construction programs Early 1921, British ordering four very large battle- cruisersEarly 1921, British ordering four very large battle- cruisers Plans for four matching battleships to followPlans for four matching battleships to follow Burst of capital-ship construction kindled fears of a new naval arms raceBurst of capital-ship construction kindled fears of a new naval arms race Similar to Anglo-German Dreadnought race leading up to World War ISimilar to Anglo-German Dreadnought race leading up to World War I Background

Harding Administration, through Secretary of State Charles Evans Hughes, invited nine countries having interests in Pacific/East AsiaHarding Administration, through Secretary of State Charles Evans Hughes, invited nine countries having interests in Pacific/East Asia Conference held 12 Nov 1921 to 6 Feb 1922Conference held 12 Nov 1921 to 6 Feb 1922 Three major agreements reachedThree major agreements reached Four Power Treaty: maintained territorial status quo in PacificFour Power Treaty: maintained territorial status quo in Pacific Five-Power Treaty: attempted to prevent naval arms raceFive-Power Treaty: attempted to prevent naval arms race Nine-Power Treaty: continued principles of U.S. “Open Door Notes” of 1899Nine-Power Treaty: continued principles of U.S. “Open Door Notes” of 1899 Background

Five-Power Treaty was also known as the Washington Naval TreatyFive-Power Treaty was also known as the Washington Naval Treaty Limited naval armaments of five signatories: U.S., British Empire, Japan, France, ItalyLimited naval armaments of five signatories: U.S., British Empire, Japan, France, Italy Treaty signed 6 February 1922Treaty signed 6 February 1922 Germany not affectedGermany not affected Its naval construction was already severely limited by the Treaty of VersaillesIts naval construction was already severely limited by the Treaty of Versailles Background

Limited total capital ship tonnage of each powerLimited total capital ship tonnage of each power In addition:In addition: No single ship could exceed 35,000 tonsNo single ship could exceed 35,000 tons No ship could carry guns in excess of 16” (bore diameter)No ship could carry guns in excess of 16” (bore diameter) Tonnage Limitations COUNTRYCAPITAL SHIPSCARRIERS British Empire525,000 tons135,000 tons United States525,000 tons135,000 tons Japan315,000 tons 81,000 tons France175,000 tons 60,000 tons Italy175,000 tons 60,000 tons Tonnage excluded fuel and boiler water; British argued that their global activities demanded higher fuel loads than other nations and they should not be penalized.Tonnage excluded fuel and boiler water; British argued that their global activities demanded higher fuel loads than other nations and they should not be penalized. Terms of the Naval Treaty

Aircraft carriers were addressed specifically by the treaty Only 2 carriers/nation could exceed 27,000 tons Those 2 were limited to 33,000 tons (33,500 t) each Exception was made to allow battleships/battle-cruisers being built to be converted to aircraft carriers Largest guns on carriers limited to 8” maximum Not legal to put small aircraft on battleship and call it aircraft carrier Terms of the Naval Treaty

Fortifications and naval bases U.S., Britain, Japan agreed to maintain status quo No new fortifications or naval bases to be established Existing bases and defenses not to be improved in territories specified Construction allowed on main coasts of countries, but not on smaller islands U.S. could build on Hawaii and Alaskan mainland, but not on Aleutian Islands Facilities of Royal Australian Navy and New Zealand Division of the Royal Navy could be built up, but not base of Hong Kong Japan could build on home islands, but not Formosa Terms of the Naval Treaty

Treaty members allowed to build, replace ships within terms of TreatyTreaty members allowed to build, replace ships within terms of Treaty Any build or replacement had to be directly communicated to the other Treaty signatoriesAny build or replacement had to be directly communicated to the other Treaty signatories Some exceptions made for ships in current use and under constructionSome exceptions made for ships in current use and under construction New “heavy cruiser” class authorizedNew “heavy cruiser” class authorized Ships limited to 10,000 tons, but armament specifications unclearShips limited to 10,000 tons, but armament specifications unclear Terms of the Naval Treaty

1930, with Great Depression deepening, Washington Treaty was extended by London Naval Treaty1930, with Great Depression deepening, Washington Treaty was extended by London Naval Treaty Limits on capital ships and aircraft carriers continuedLimits on capital ships and aircraft carriers continued Capital-ships tonnage limits now: 10/10/7 (U.K./U.S./Japan)Capital-ships tonnage limits now: 10/10/7 (U.K./U.S./Japan) Capital ships now limited in numbers: 15/15/9 (U.K./U.S./Japan)Capital ships now limited in numbers: 15/15/9 (U.K./U.S./Japan) Cruisers now formally divided into heavy (8” guns) and light (6” guns) categories—still with 10,000-ton limitCruisers now formally divided into heavy (8” guns) and light (6” guns) categories—still with 10,000-ton limit Terms of the Naval Treaty

Building programs changedBuilding programs changed British gave up planned large battleships, battle- cruisersBritish gave up planned large battleships, battle- cruisers Almost all powers built new “heavy cruisers,” but few new battleships were builtAlmost all powers built new “heavy cruisers,” but few new battleships were built Powers attempted new battleship designs within treaty limitationsPowers attempted new battleship designs within treaty limitations Weight limitations restricted hull length, ergo speedWeight limitations restricted hull length, ergo speed U.S. used high-strength boilers for higher speed in shorter shipU.S. used high-strength boilers for higher speed in shorter ship Germany (under Versailles limitations) tried high-strength steels for better armor, lower weightGermany (under Versailles limitations) tried high-strength steels for better armor, lower weight Responses to the Treaty

Powers attempted new battleship designs within treaty limitationsPowers attempted new battleship designs within treaty limitations Weight limitations restricted hull length, ergo speedWeight limitations restricted hull length, ergo speed Britain designed ships that could have armor added after war began, used boiler feed-water tanks as part of protective schemeBritain designed ships that could have armor added after war began, used boiler feed-water tanks as part of protective scheme Italy lied about tonnage of its shipsItaly lied about tonnage of its ships Japan withdrew from treaty in 1936Japan withdrew from treaty in 1936 Resumed previous building program, including super- battleships with 460mm (18.1”) main gunsResumed previous building program, including super- battleships with 460mm (18.1”) main guns Responses to the Treaty

Aircraft CarriersAircraft Carriers Italy, France (and Germany) did not build carriers until WWII was loomingItaly, France (and Germany) did not build carriers until WWII was looming British Royal Navy, with worldwide responsibilities, built six carriers between 1920 and 1939British Royal Navy, with worldwide responsibilities, built six carriers between 1920 and 1939 U.S. Navy had one experimental carrier—built six more while converting first one to seaplane tenderU.S. Navy had one experimental carrier—built six more while converting first one to seaplane tender Two—Lexington and Saratoga—were built on hulls of battle-cruisers that otherwise would have had to be scrappedTwo—Lexington and Saratoga—were built on hulls of battle-cruisers that otherwise would have had to be scrapped These two were 33,000 tons, w/8” guns, as permittedThese two were 33,000 tons, w/8” guns, as permitted Began six more starting in 1939Began six more starting in 1939 Responses to the Treaty

Aircraft CarriersAircraft Carriers Japan converted incomplete battleship Kaga and incomplete battle-cruiser Akagi to carriersJapan converted incomplete battleship Kaga and incomplete battle-cruiser Akagi to carriers Per same provisions as led to USS Lexington and SaratogaPer same provisions as led to USS Lexington and Saratoga Responses to the Treaty

Treaty created political crisis in JapanTreaty created political crisis in Japan U.S. had decrypted participants’ communications to home countries, in particular those of Japanese delegationU.S. had decrypted participants’ communications to home countries, in particular those of Japanese delegation Knew what were minimum terms Japanese would acceptKnew what were minimum terms Japanese would accept Japanese accepted 5/5/3 ratio, but felt snubbed, humiliatedJapanese accepted 5/5/3 ratio, but felt snubbed, humiliated Even though numbers actually were to Japan’s advantageEven though numbers actually were to Japan’s advantage Japan only had to operate in one ocean, while U.S. had to operate in two, and Britain had to operate in threeJapan only had to operate in one ocean, while U.S. had to operate in two, and Britain had to operate in three Responses to the Treaty

Treaty created political crisis in JapanTreaty created political crisis in Japan Schism between “Treaty Faction” naval officers and ultranationalist naval and army officersSchism between “Treaty Faction” naval officers and ultranationalist naval and army officers Contributed to deterioration in U.S.-Japan relationsContributed to deterioration in U.S.-Japan relations 29 December 1934, Japanese gave notice of withdrawal from London Naval Treaty29 December 1934, Japanese gave notice of withdrawal from London Naval Treaty Provisions remained in force until end of 1936Provisions remained in force until end of 1936 Second London Naval Conference, Second London Naval Conference, Japan withdrew, as did ItalyJapan withdrew, as did Italy Resulting treaty was weak, largely evaded by signatoriesResulting treaty was weak, largely evaded by signatories Responses to the Treaty

BattleshipsBattleships U.S. Navy battleships during Treaty talksU.S. Navy battleships during Treaty talks South Carolina class (South Carolina, Michigan)South Carolina class (South Carolina, Michigan) Both commissioned 1910, decommissioned by Feb 1922Both commissioned 1910, decommissioned by Feb 1922 Delaware class (Delaware, North Dakota)Delaware class (Delaware, North Dakota) Both commissioned 1910; Delaware scrapped in 1923; North Dakota scrapped in 1931Both commissioned 1910; Delaware scrapped in 1923; North Dakota scrapped in 1931 Florida class (Florida, Utah)Florida class (Florida, Utah) Both commissioned 1911; Florida decommissioned 1931; Utah converted to gunnery training ship 1931Both commissioned 1911; Florida decommissioned 1931; Utah converted to gunnery training ship 1931 Wyoming class (Wyoming, Arkansas)Wyoming class (Wyoming, Arkansas) Both commissioned 1912; Wyoming converted to gunnery training ship 1931; Arkansas served through WWIIBoth commissioned 1912; Wyoming converted to gunnery training ship 1931; Arkansas served through WWII American Actions

USS South Carolina: South Carolina class battleship

USS Delaware: Delaware class battleship

USS Florida: Florida class battleship

USS Wyoming: Wyoming class battleship

BattleshipsBattleships U.S. Navy battleships during Treaty talksU.S. Navy battleships during Treaty talks New York class (New York, Texas)New York class (New York, Texas) Both commissioned 1912, served through WWIIBoth commissioned 1912, served through WWII Nevada class (Nevada, Oklahoma)Nevada class (Nevada, Oklahoma) First class of “Standard type” U.S. Navy battleshipsFirst class of “Standard type” U.S. Navy battleships Both commissioned 1916; at Pearl Harbor, Oklahoma sunk, Nevada damaged, repaired, served through WWIIBoth commissioned 1916; at Pearl Harbor, Oklahoma sunk, Nevada damaged, repaired, served through WWII Pennsylvania class (Pennsylvania, Arizona)Pennsylvania class (Pennsylvania, Arizona) Both commissioned 1916; at Pearl Harbor, Arizona sunk, Pennsylvania damaged, repaired, served through WWIIBoth commissioned 1916; at Pearl Harbor, Arizona sunk, Pennsylvania damaged, repaired, served through WWII American Actions

USS Texas: New York class battleship

USS Oklahoma: Nevada class battleship

USS Arizona: Pennsylvania class battleship

BattleshipsBattleships U.S. Navy battleships during Treaty talksU.S. Navy battleships during Treaty talks New Mexico class (New Mexico, Mississippi, Idaho)New Mexico class (New Mexico, Mississippi, Idaho) Commissioned , served through WWIICommissioned , served through WWII Tennessee class (Tennessee, California)Tennessee class (Tennessee, California) Commissioned ; both damaged at Pearl Harbor, served through WWIICommissioned ; both damaged at Pearl Harbor, served through WWII Colorado class (Maryland)Colorado class (Maryland) Commissioned 1921, served through WWIICommissioned 1921, served through WWII Sister ships Colorado, West Virginia, commissioned 1923, served through WWIISister ships Colorado, West Virginia, commissioned 1923, served through WWII Sister ship Washington 76% completed, sunk as target 1924Sister ship Washington 76% completed, sunk as target 1924 American Actions

USS New Mexico: New Mexico class battleship

USS Tennessee on 10 Dec 1941, still wedged between her mooring piers and the sunken USS West Virginia: Tennessee class battleship

USS Maryland on 7 December 1941, next to the capsized USS Oklahoma: Colorado class battleship

USS West Virginia on 7 December 1941: Colorado class battleship

BattleshipsBattleships U.S. Navy battleships never completed due to talksU.S. Navy battleships never completed due to talks South Dakota class (South Dakota, Indiana, Montana, North Carolina, Iowa, Massachusetts)South Dakota class (South Dakota, Indiana, Montana, North Carolina, Iowa, Massachusetts) Last class of “Standard type” battleshipsLast class of “Standard type” battleships All cancelled prior to launch 1923 and scrapped in accordance with terms of Washington Naval TreatyAll cancelled prior to launch 1923 and scrapped in accordance with terms of Washington Naval Treaty American Actions

BattleshipsBattleships U.S. Navy “treaty battleships”U.S. Navy “treaty battleships” North Carolina class (North Carolina, Washington)North Carolina class (North Carolina, Washington) Commissioned early 1941; last class finished prior to WWIICommissioned early 1941; last class finished prior to WWII First of new fast battleships, with 16” main gunsFirst of new fast battleships, with 16” main guns Probably best class of all powers’ treaty battleshipsProbably best class of all powers’ treaty battleships Both ships served through WWIIBoth ships served through WWII Washington sank Japanese battle-cruiser Kirishima in 1-on-1 fight, night of 14/15 Nov 1942Washington sank Japanese battle-cruiser Kirishima in 1-on-1 fight, night of 14/15 Nov 1942 South Dakota class (South Dakota, Indiana, Massachusetts, Alabama)South Dakota class (South Dakota, Indiana, Massachusetts, Alabama) Last “treaty battleships”Last “treaty battleships” Shorter, better-armored, slower than North CarolinasShorter, better-armored, slower than North Carolinas All served through WWIIAll served through WWII American Actions

USS North Carolina: North Carolina class battleship

USS Indiana: South Dakota class battleship

BattleshipsBattleships U.S. Navy battle-cruisersU.S. Navy battle-cruisers Lexington class (Lexington, Constellation, Saratoga, Ranger, Constitution, United States)Lexington class (Lexington, Constellation, Saratoga, Ranger, Constitution, United States) Construction on all began Construction on all began Lexington, Saratoga converted to aircraft carriers in accordance with terms of Washington Naval TreatyLexington, Saratoga converted to aircraft carriers in accordance with terms of Washington Naval Treaty Remaining four had construction halted, eventually were scrappedRemaining four had construction halted, eventually were scrapped American Actions

Painting of never-completed Lexington class battle-cruiser

Rear Admirals David W. Taylor (left) and John K. Robison (right) hold a model of the under-construction battle-cruiser Lexington above a model of the proposed aircraft carrier-conversion at the Navy Department on 8 Mar 1922.

Aircraft CarriersAircraft Carriers U.S. Navy “treaty carriers”U.S. Navy “treaty carriers” Lexington class (Lexington, Saratoga)Lexington class (Lexington, Saratoga) Converted from Lexington class battle-cruisersConverted from Lexington class battle-cruisers Both commissioned 1927; largest U.S. carriers until 1945Both commissioned 1927; largest U.S. carriers until 1945 Lexington sunk at Battle of Coral Sea, 1942; Saratoga served through WWIILexington sunk at Battle of Coral Sea, 1942; Saratoga served through WWII Set pattern for future U.S.N. carriers: large, with long flight decks, starboard-side “islands” and high-volume hangar decksSet pattern for future U.S.N. carriers: large, with long flight decks, starboard-side “islands” and high-volume hangar decks Ranger class (Ranger)Ranger class (Ranger) Commissioned 1934Commissioned 1934 Proved to be too smallProved to be too small Served through WWII, mostly in secondary operationsServed through WWII, mostly in secondary operations American Actions

Aircraft CarriersAircraft Carriers U.S. Navy “treaty carriers”U.S. Navy “treaty carriers” Yorktown class (Yorktown, Enterprise)Yorktown class (Yorktown, Enterprise) Commissioned Commissioned Large, fast, flexibleLarge, fast, flexible Yorktown sunk at Battle of Midway, 1942; Enterprise served through WWIIYorktown sunk at Battle of Midway, 1942; Enterprise served through WWII Sister ship Hornet built after Treaty obligations ended; sunk at Battle of Santa Cruz, 1942Sister ship Hornet built after Treaty obligations ended; sunk at Battle of Santa Cruz, 1942 Wasp class (Wasp)Wasp class (Wasp) Built to use up last 15,000 tons allowed under TreatyBuilt to use up last 15,000 tons allowed under Treaty Used smaller version of Yorktown-class hullUsed smaller version of Yorktown-class hull Odd, compromised design; too small and too lightly protectedOdd, compromised design; too small and too lightly protected Sunk near Guadalcanal, 1942Sunk near Guadalcanal, 1942 American Actions

USS Lexington: Lexington class aircraft carrier

USS Ranger: Ranger class aircraft carrier

USS Enterprise: Yorktown class aircraft carrier

USS Wasp: Wasp class aircraft carrier

Effects of Washington Naval Treaty, and follow-on London treatiesEffects of Washington Naval Treaty, and follow-on London treaties Naval arms race haltedNaval arms race halted U.S., Britain, Japan built more aircraft carriers than otherwise would have been the caseU.S., Britain, Japan built more aircraft carriers than otherwise would have been the case Japan became resentful; ultranationalists eventually took power, started war with China, leading to war with U.S.Japan became resentful; ultranationalists eventually took power, started war with China, leading to war with U.S. Bottom line:Bottom line: Treaty system helped limit naval arms and preserve peace from 1922 to 1939Treaty system helped limit naval arms and preserve peace from 1922 to 1939 Conclusion