Search results for query: *

  1. R

    A "take" on the Washington Naval Treaty - It was a solution to a problem that was more apparent than real

    oh, come on, let's not go overboard. I could imagine, the Japanese Army and Navy getting more at each other's throats over spending, and may find the China war unaffordable after straining on naval spending in the 1920s.
  2. R

    A "take" on the Washington Naval Treaty - It was a solution to a problem that was more apparent than real

    Here is a wonderful test of the *urgency* and *dire necessity* of the Washington Naval Treaty for preserving peace/preventing war. I concede, during the lifetime of the Treaty, 1922-1936, when it was observed, there was no war between the Five Signatory Powers: US, UK, Japan, France, Italy...
  3. R

    A "take" on the Washington Naval Treaty - It was a solution to a problem that was more apparent than real

    You have repeated the argument for it causing an unlimited and expensive arms race. [and ignored eventual limiting factors discussed in the OP] You have not provided any argument, at all, that an expensive arms race = a naval war Related back to the first point. Pride "dictates" what pride...
  4. R

    A "take" on the Washington Naval Treaty - It was a solution to a problem that was more apparent than real

    My personal interpretation, or "take" on the Washington Naval Treaty of 1922, is that it was a solution to a problem that was more apparent than real. What was the apparent problem? That without arms control, unlimited warship building would consume national budgets and lead to mutual...
Back
Top