The Washington Naval Treaty - The parties, the motives, the negotiations, the loophole abuse...

[@Drachinifel]

Pinned post for Q&A :)

[@0Fingolfin0]

What is you favorite heroic act of an individual serving on a warship?

[@crimist6873]

Since Japan withdrawn from the naval treaties later on in the interwar period, is it possible for them to atleast build 2 Kii class Battleships or 2 Number 13 class Battleships as replacement for Tosa (Served as Target Ship then scuttled in 1925) and Kaga (Converted to Carrier after the earthquake damage on Amagi)?

[@Grimmtoof]

Alternate history question for you! In the run up to WW1 Germany decides not to try to match the British Grand Fleet and instead just builds a small costal defense fleet. All the money that would otherwise be spent on the high seas fleet is instead wasted on mustache wax and sausages (so isn't available for any other military use). Everything else precedes as historically and Britain still joins WW1. Is there anything the Royal Navy could do to significantly impact the outcome now that it doesn't have a large enemy fleet to worry about?

[@QALibrary]

why did nations not just totally cheat or just walk away from The Washington Naval Treaty - who was going to say you cheating and enforce the rules etc

[@arivael]

You mention how the treaty limits on cruisers would come back to bite the compliant designs as you couldn't get both a sufficient 8 inch gun armament and also armour against 8 inch fire on 10,000 tons. Battleships would face the same issue, with it not really being possible to get the 9x16 inch everyone was planning for their next round of battleships properly on to a 35,000 ton hull (The Nelsons having to make quite a few design compromises to just about do it). Where these failings a result of the negotiators not checking with naval architects about what could be built or just poor estimates by the architects about what could be done with those displacements? Additionally what do you think battleship/battlecruiser designs would have looked like under the treaty system if Hood's displacement had been used to set the upper limit and likewise how do the Nelsons look with that limit?

[@GeneralJackRipper]

It's amazing how world-changing naval treaties are so easy to read and understand, yet local municipal parking codes are so byzantine and unintelligible.

[@aristosachaion_]

That simplicity was what allowed the naval powers to capitalise on the many loopholes the treaty presented.

[@GeneralJackRipper]

@@aristosachaion_ I wasn't aware of any loopholes, what really happened was blatant cheating.

[@owlsayssouth]

@@GeneralJackRipper 10k tonnage of carrier definition. The only limit on all other warships being no guns over 8" and 10k tonnage. Both loopholes that later had to be fixed.

[@jakubkarczynski269]

@@owlsayssouth there were also holes which weren't used.

[@the_undead]

@@owlsayssouth even the patched loopholes of the London Naval treaty still reads easier than parking enforcement laws. The primary reason it's like this is because people who know the most about legal stuff are going to be the ones writing these world-changing treaties people who don't know all that much about laws relatively speaking are going to be the ones writing stuff like parking enforcement laws and whatnot

[@gamebook727]

The Americans didn't want to build the ships, but could have afforded to do so. The Japanese did want to build the ships, but couldn't have afforded to do so. The French wanted other people to think that they wanted to build the ships and could afford to do so, but in fact they didn't want to and couldn't have afforded to do so. The Italians did not want the French to build the ships, and thought they had prevented them from doing so, but in fact see above. The Italians themselves could not afford to build the ships any more than the French could. The British sort of wanted to build the ships, and could sort of have afforded to do so, but would rather everyone just restrained themselves as that would leave the Royal Navy in a better position than they could have paid for in the event of another naval arms race.

[@1joshjosh1]

Nice!!!! Good little reading package there.

[@Rutherford_Inchworm_III]

I wanted you to think I read this, but I couldn't afford to.

[@scottyfox6376]

Australia wanted bigger warships but "Mum" (Britain) said No, cause she signed the treaty & that meant her kids (Dominions) couldn't have new toys. Awww Ma..!

[@cadengrace5466]

A little tweak. The Americans did want to build ships, they wanted to build a lot of ships. The Republican Congress was not going to do it with a Democrat President and by the time the Republicans had a Republican president and Republican Congress, the Washington naval Treaty existed. There has always been a lot of myth surrounding the will of the American people to support a naval construction program, most of the American people at this time had never seen the ocean much less a warship and have even less care about the navy building ships. Build them or not, it did not affect their lives on the farms and the urban centers that were not located on the coast. If the post war political power had been all Republican, there would have been a continued naval construction program.

[@lst141]

Complicated explanation but fair enough!!!!!!!

[@ThePinkus]

J's argument: "We calculated that to defeat You we need 70% of this, but You granted us only 60% of this!" A's argument: "Well... yep!" ...and that's why in diplomacy the real argument is often not stated.

[@stephenpickering8063]

It should be remembered that this was to defeat a US attack on Japan, which was the primary Japanese fear. Hence they felt that being restricted to only 60% they were left vulnerable to US pressure or even hostilities. Two points should be considered here of course. a) Both powers were highly committed to a strong belief in the theories of Mahan, which was where that 70% ratio came from. Of course that only applies if you think Mahan was both correct and such a tight interpretation of his theory applied. b) This was with starting forces. Of course in a longer war the US can simply outbuild Japan which of course happened OTL and was already happening because of the military build-ups that started pre Dec 1941.

[@absboodoo]

The correct way for Japan to read the Washington Naval Treaty isn't that we only have 3/5 of their ships, it's USN only have 5/3 of our ships. lol

[@caringancoystopitum4224]

Also A: "No matter how large the French and British colonial empire is, we want to have a navy that is larger, or at least the same size as yours, despite the fact, that our offshore possessions only comprise to a few islands in the pacific with small populations and next to no industrial worth. And we want the Japanese to be limited to a navy that is too small to even effectively defend itself against an attack from us." The world: "Yeah, that's sound completely fair and reasonable. Let's do that."

[@Laotzu.Goldbug]

@@caringancoystopitum4224 the thing is, despite their large Empires at this point in time the United States was already by far the world's largest industrial power, and that gap was only growing. So while it may not have been _de jure_ an imperial power, _de facto_ its influence already matched or exceeded them. And you're also forgetting the fact that during this time the United States actually had significant overseas possessions since it owned not just Hawaii and Guam, but the Philippines was entirely US territory. People forget that with the Spanish-American War the United States became, pretty much, a colonial Empire.

[@looinrims]

@@caringancoystopitum4224 sorry who had to float the farthest anyway?

[@PrivateHaggard]

So... I basically listens for almost an hour to a man explaining an almost 100 year old navy treaty that only was relevant for about 10 years. Reach you absolute madman. Keep up the great work

[@krautreport202]

I am somewhat surprised that the video is that short.

[@bogatyr2473]

It was actually a tremendously important treaty and why there wasn't a war in the late 20's or early 30's between the US and a British/Japanese alliance.

[@richardtaylor1652]

@@bogatyr2473 It would make for an interesting what-if?

[@matchesburn]

"that only was relevant for about 10 years" Keep in mind that build doctrine is fleet doctrine. Capital ships takes years to construct and it takes even longer to amass a fleet of them. Make no mistake: the Washington Naval Treaty had far reaching consequences (for those that actually followed it...) well into WW2. You go to war with the fleet you have, not the fleet you want to build.

[@fnorgen]

Having followed this channel for quite a while, It struck me that the Washington naval treaty is mentioned all the damn time. It had an enormous impact on what ships the different navies entered WW2 with. A lot of seemingly bizarre design decisions were due to naval architects trying to work around the limitations of the treaty.

[@justit1074]

"Ok, no more battleships" "Lets build really large heavy cruisers" "Ok, you can't build heavy cruisers larger than this set number" "Lets build really large light cruisers and put heavy cruiser guns on them" "Ok, now the only differentiating factor distinguishing heavy from light cruisers is gun calibre, and the previous limits on heavy cruisers now apply to both types" "Lets build bigger destroyers" "Fine, limitations on total tonnage of our entire destroyer flotillas" *Ignores the treaties anyways*

[@Metal_Auditor]

Sort of, although before the London treaty heavy cruisers were still called light cruisers.

[@lv83bloodknight]

Or in case of Mogami class "Lets put CL guns on CAs so we can claim they are CLs, then change the guns later!"

[@VainerCactus0]

30K ton patrol boats.

[@nukclear2741]

@@VainerCactus0 “W-what do you mean that’s a battleship? It’s a patrol boat, see, it doesn’t even have any big guns. No, those Barbettes are there purely for looks. See it LOOKS like a battle ship, but it’s not.” “Ok, they’re gone, install the turrets now”

[@glennheth3472]

France: Let's put cruiser armament on a submarine! "Oh FFS!"

[@anthonyrobinson7715]

I always wondered why the Royal Navy accepted the limitation of just 2 Nelson-class. I never considered HMS Hood was silently standing in as the 3rd. Excellent video!

[@elysiankentarchy1531]

@Fender Player I direct you to Drach's video on that matter.

[@jimtherook3722]

@Fender Player Hood had been run into the ground by continuous active service throughout the interwar years and had yet to be modernised when the Second World War broke out. It’s not surprising that what was essentially a 1920’s battle cruiser got its ass kicked by a modern fast battleship

[@MrChickennugget360]

@Fender Player ships whos magazines detonate tend to do that.

[@bermanmo6237]

However, Hood is not a real battleship. Just because your ship looks like a battleship and armed like a battleship, does not make it a battleship. So it is really a battlecruiser since it relies on speed for protection, which means it gives up armor. So, due to the size of the ship and armament, battlecruiser being used as battleship even though it was not. Hood itself took a small number of hits from the Bismarck and went down quickly. So like a boxer with a glass jar, they can dish out the hits, but can't take the hits. Ironically, the British had the World War I era Queen Elizabeth class which despite its 15 inch gun can actually keep up with the battlecruiser. Which is why it was retain since it fits to the fast battleship concept which evolved into battleship like the Iowa class, which had a cruising speed 30 knots, fast enough to keep up with the carriers as escorts. The United States Navy also had the odd ball Alaska class battlecruiser which is really more like a Baltimore heavy cruiser, which does look like battleship with its 9 eight inch guns mount in 3 triple turrets like a typical World War 2 American battleship, but with 12 inch guns in three triple turrets. It was supposed to counter the rumor of the Japanese Navy building a heavy cruiser mounting 10 inch guns in multiple twin turrets, 5 to be exact. In other words, upgrades to a Mogami class, which had 5 twin turrets with 8 inches. The upgraded class were never built. Only 2 of the 4 Alaska were built. They ended up being used as carrier escorts as well.

[@logion567]

@@bermanmo6237 Hood (as built if not originally designed) was only fractionally less armored than the Queen Elizabeth Class, the extra ~14,000 tons of displacement was for getting that extra 6-8 knots of speed. She was classified by the British as a Battlecruiser because the Original Admiral class was just that. but after Jutland Hood was up-armored, and the others scrapped in deference to what was going to become the G3s.

[@logion567]

"cheese goes on top of pasta and cheese goes on top of pizza" Drachism of the day

[@luisnunes2010]

And a banger!

[@khaelamensha3624]

My wife looked strangely at me as I did laugh in front of my screen. I may be french but I am a big fan of Drachism. A good day to everyone (Drachnifel channel having perhaps the most civilised commentaries of all youtube).

[@gabrieledondoni6371]

@@khaelamensha3624 i'm italian and i laughed exactly like you

[@khaelamensha3624]

@@gabrieledondoni6371 Well does not surprise me, this Drachism describe so well the french so called 'Elite'. Wish you well in these trouble times! Hope to visit Italia again soon!

[@thehandoftheking3314]

Burgers? Tomato soup?

[@coartramey7382]

Despite the abuses, the Washington Treaty was a bellwether for voluntary international arms limitation and relieved pressure on national economies just when they needed it. It showed that even when motivated by self-interest the major powers could work together and could all benefit from controlling military expenditure.

[@trevorday7923]

And the various nuclear disarmament treaties mainly happened after the USSR detonated the 53Mt Tsar Bomba, which was still blowing out windows and flattening light structures five hundred miles from Ground Zero, and all the nuclear-armed nations (USSR included) kind of shuffled their feet and muttered "okay, this is getting a bit silly now". The thermonuclear dick-measuring contest was therefore stopped, hurriedly sweeping under the rug the fact that the Tsar Bomba was supposed to be a 100Mt country-eraser but Andre Sakharov calculated it would very probably ignite the atmosphere and kill every living thing on the face of the planet..... and, following a change of trousers, very rapidly nerfed the bomb down to "only" 53Mt

[@1179125]

"Britain managed to distract everyone from the exsistence of Hood that no one gonna asks to scrap it" German: Now this looks like a job for me

[@ApusApus]

That was more like a rapid unscheduled dissasembly than scrapping though.

[@Keckegenkai]

the mid section fell off

[@jamesharding3459]

A 1 in a million lucky hit does not a trend make.

[@krisvires]

"Drach explains the Washington Naval Treaty... this should be good, like Game of Thrones... with Battleships!" *goes to make popcorn.

[@yes_head]

Yes, because we all can imagine Littlefinger and Varys sitting down to draft treaties with exhaustive numbers of Articles and Clauses.

[@weldonwin]

Game of Thrones with Battleships... so that'd be Battletech then, albeit in its earlier periods, before the Four Succession Wars ruined everything

[@keithsimpson2685]

More like 40k army lists with the specifics weigths and compositions lol

[@Big_E_Soul_Fragment]

In real-life attempt to a game "balance"

[@randomguy4616]

Exactly lmao

[@jacobwerner274]

Was patched out after extensive abuse

[@nitsu2947]

suddenly the players realized what they can do, and they did. The devs are busy making premium contents

[@Count_Gustav]

Bug detected: some nation lied on ship's displacement

[@thelvadam2884]

so true lol

[@arkadeepkundu4729]

The one dislike is probably a Japanese admiral unhappy with the progress of the negotiations.

[@MaldiRT]

What dislike? Oh

[@khaelamensha3624]

One of the biggest mistery of KZbin, how can someone can dislike a Frachinifel video.... I ask for an international investigation!

[@davidbrennan660]

A dislike to a Drachinfel video was likely covered in the Washington Treaty appendix subsections.

[@Alpostpone]

@@khaelamensha3624 Universal Law Of KZbin Likes: No matter how good a video is, it will inevitably settle to around 100 Likes - 1 Dislike -ratio.

[@thehandoftheking3314]

A Japanese Admiral, the Kriegsmarine and a random Frenchman.

[@blackpowder4016]

Excellent presentation. A small elucidation. The US did not want to become the biggest navy merely for boasting rights. It was a direct response to the seizure of American merchant ships on the high seas in 1915 in violation of international law and the London Declarations of 1910. These ships, carrying cargoes to neutrals, were stopped and instead of being inspected on the spot and allowed to pass if no contraband was found were brought into British ports, unloaded, and in many cases the cargo seized without payment. American owners were denied representation, or even the right to be present at Prize Court hearings to give a defense. This was a great embarrassment to President Wilson as it was the casus belli for the Anglo-American War of 1812. As a southerner, if he failed to stand up for northern shipping interests he would not be re-elected the following year (1916). The British also remembered 1812 and did not formally seize any of the ships except those caught trying to trade with Germany but held them, often for months while charging port fees, storage, and for the cost to unload them. The US government told the owners not to pay while they attempted a diplomatic solution. The British even seized a ship belonging to Standard Oil carrying cans of illuminating oil, another non-contraband item, but released it promptly when John D. Rockefeller sent a telegram. The Dacia Incident, in particular, was galling because the British legal point of view on her legitimacy was the same as the Americans' as Sir Edward Grey had confirmed. Cotton was specifically exempted from being contraband by the London Declarations. Britain had objected to Russia declaring cotton contraband only a decade earlier during the Russo-Japanese War. Moreover, H.M. government had given the US government a specific assurance that cotton would not only be allowed to pass to neutrals but to Germany as well. Germany bought a sixth of US cotton production before the war. Later they realized how dependent the Germans were on imported cotton to make cordite. Turkish cotton could not reach them because Romania was blocking train traffic. So the British claimed ships were sneaking copper billets into cotton bales and began stopping them. No copper was ever found but they bought over £2,000,000 in cotton cargoes to keep them from the Germans. The British reversed their cotton policy without notice by an Order in Council of March 11, 1915 making cotton contraband. The US government had informed the British Dacia was carrying cotton to the Netherlands. They suddenly felt the US might be using her as a test case to establish a precedent to trade with neutrals. But intercepting her was tricky. They had given their assent to President Wilson. So they tipped off the French to do the actual dirty work of seizing Dacia so they could appear guiltless of breaking their word. President Wilson, an anglophile, felt he'd been betrayed. He wasn't going to take it lying down. He asked Congress for a fleet. The biggest fleet in the world, as big as the next two combined. There were also complaints about the Germans. Lusitania was sunk in the middle of all this in May but this announcement was specifically aimed at Britain. President Wilson said to his aide, Col. Edward House that he was anxious to hasten the day when the U.S. Navy was larger than the United Kingdom's, proclaiming "Let us build a Navy bigger than hers and do what we please." Congress approved the plan in July, 1915 as part of the 1916 budget. The British got the message. They began releasing American ships or offered to buy them at prices high enough that the owners made no complaint. They dropped demands for fees and reloaded innocent cargoes at their own expense. There was also some compensation for seized or spoiled cargoes with the notable exception of Dacia, and the Chicago Meat Packers, who lost fifteen million 1915 dollars worth of canned meat destined for Copenhagen. To put that in perspective it was 33 shiploads of canned meat sent over three months. $15,000,000 was 750,000 troy ounces of fine gold. H.M. government claimed the meat was packaged for troop rations and would be transshipped from Denmark to Germany. In fact, they used the same tins the British specified for their own use. That was convenient as the British kept it. Nevertheless, fences were mended quickly. Compromise agreements were reached whereby neutrals could get American cargoes but only at pre-war import levels. In practice the British bought as much as they could, especially considering their shipping losses. They would sell what they didn't need to the neutrals which guaranteed they knew what the neutrals were getting. I doubt the British got any more canned meat from Chicago though.

[@looinrims]

Golly gee wilikers! Who would’ve expected the British to break their word and act in complete disregard to not only international agreements (that they made in some cases) but also in basic decency! They best count their blessings the planet didn’t try to rip them to shreds for all their nonsense for over 700 years, and they would’ve deserved every ounce of it, but they decided to play right and become a US client state

[@23GreyFox]

Ahh yes, the good old Lusitania. A merchant cruisers with human shields.

[@Brecconable]

@@looinrims They did try to rip us apart since 1066. And we are still here. You want to blame someone blame the entire establishment. And now the US is a puppet of China.

[@looinrims]

@@Brecconable US is a puppet of China? That nation who’s been dependent on espionage of our technology for decades? That nation that can’t even, despite the espionage, make equipment on par with their northern neighbor’s equipment? Nonsense

[@spudgamer6049]

I'm always a bit surprised every time I'm reminded how close the US came to entering the great war on the other side than it actually did. How much different of a world would we live in today if that had happened?

[@abyssaljam441]

Drac, I love how you can hear your trying to keep a straight face when reading, 'shall be acquired by, or constructed by, for, or within the jurisdiction of, and of the contracting powers.' I can barely do it.

[@InchonDM]

I love how you can tell which elements are specifically aimed at Britain. Secretary Hughes just sitting there with a list looking up at every word at Beatty, who is completely unapologetic.

[@christopherlynch3314]

"On a train wreck to nowhere" mixed metaphor award for the day!

[@jasonlupo4117]

You obviously haven't read the original illustrated version of Dr. Seuss's "Green Eggs and Ham". :D

[@jt_kirk]

*Gets giddy about a video on the Washington Naval Treaty*

[@thehandoftheking3314]

Remember you can't bugger a Treaty Kirk.

[@JimmyMon666]

I'm a bonafide Navy nerd at this point. The funny part is when I was in the U.S. Navy I didn't give a rats ass about Naval history. Something that comes with age I suppose.

[@harryparmley1193]

As many references as there are in Drack's vlogs about this treaty, it's nice to get some insight into what it encompassed. Also interesting to see how well/badly all concerned followed/ignored the piece of paper. In the end, the compiant needed the cheater to beat the cheater. Yeah, stupid piece of paper...

[@corypharr4572]

Appropriate somehow that this was released on the 115th birthday of HMS Dreadnought.

[@elysiankentarchy1531]

Gone but not forgotten.

[@cbbees1468]

As an American, "When is Congress not screaming to the heavens?"

[@march2163]

With the amount they hate groan when tasked with budgeting something, it's no small wonder we run such a deficit.

[@artbrann]

and this was back when they were complaining they were overspending *runs off to check the current military budget I know, scary as that is

[@Amadeus-ni3et]

@@artbrann it's fucking weird we can cut it in half and still be the most expensive military.

[@JimmyMon666]

@@artbrann Not just the military budget, but our debt in general. We are going to hit 100% debt (in terms of our overall economy) this year. It's not going to be pretty in 20 years. Both parties seem intent on turning us into Greece.

[@stephenjenkins7971]

@@JimmyMon666 Greece was an issue because of Greece's economy, and more importantly due to their lies about their economy. Loss of trust is catastrophic to an economy, specifically the willingness to pay back debt. The US has always paid back debt even if it leads to more debt, all first-world nations are like that in fact. Japan and the US has a much better economy and can thus handle much more debt compared to GDP. If Japan can handle 200%+ debt, the US has little and less to worry about. If you wanna worry, then if you ever hear someone claiming that they wanna lower the debt by stinging on paying the debt for a year or so; THEN you can scream in anguish because shit is about to crash at that point because people are too stupid to know how to economy. :D

[@rifleman2c997]

Italy- When "Annoy the French" is your Foreign policy.

[@MrChickennugget360]

when isn't it?

[@scottgiles7546]

And so totally unlike the British.... (How much popcorn do you think Briton enjoyed during the Franco-Prussian War of 1870?)

[@EyeKracker83]

Enough to sink a cruiser!

[@jonathanhill4892]

Always a good foreign policy - well, unless you are French.

[@notshapedforsportivetricks2912]

@@jonathanhill4892 Well, considering the Algerian War and its aftermath, maybe even then.

[@tominiowa2513]

It is not true that Admiral Beatty was always a bad commander in surface engagements - he was the best when the enemy fleet was comprised of budget cutters. I will get my coat and hat. ;)

[@InchonDM]

_SIGH_ *paces around his office for a minute and a half* Take your like and get out, damn you.

[@karlvongazenberg8398]

But this is actually ASW, with intermittent AAA.

[@sugarnads]

@@InchonDM heh. Nice one

[@looinrims]

Translate for normal people please

[@PopeOfTheBullpuptistChurch]

This video is perfect timing I am in the middle of writing a college essay on USN cruiser development post ww1. Now I know even more about the treaty that influenced them and have some sources to cite.

[@khaelamensha3624]

OK let s get this clear if after putting Drachinifel you do not have A++ someone will be executed the teacher or you depending on who f... Up 😁

[@PhoenixT70]

I’ve used several videos by Drach in more than one academic paper and it’s worked perfectly.

[@Maddog3060]

I feel weirded out seeing the "photos" of ships that weren't actually built.

[@magnemoe1]

In an time then you can walk around inside ships never build :)

[@Scarheart76]

They're still pretty cool to look at.

[@stevenwiederholt7000]

#Maddog3060 Don't play World Of Warships then. :-)

[@Maddog3060]

@@stevenwiederholt7000 Nah, WoWS is fine; those are computer models, and they look the part. The paper ships are easy to identify because they look like builder's plans and don't have all the deck clutter of real ships. But those "photos" look just real enough to make me briefly wonder if I slipped into an alternate reality where they came to fruition, perhaps at a cost of more older ships being scrapped. It just janks me a bit.

[@stevenwiederholt7000]

@@Maddog3060 I Love the mighty WWII USSR Navy! Not to mention the German CV's /Snark :-) Don't get me wrong I still use/like those paper ships, but that's not gonna stop me from complaining. I Complain Therefore I am!

[@7thsealord888]

One consequence of the Treaty was that, to honour the RN's tonnage requirements, the Royal Australian Navy had to scuttle, and not replace, its only battlecruiser, the first HMAS Australia.

[@bullettube9863]

While historians discuss the technical details the vast population of the world breathed out a sigh of relief. The battleship race prior to WW1 was considered a cause of the Great War and people everywhere were glad the great powers agreed to limit their war making ability. You have to imagine what it was like for the survivors; no more slaughter, no more death by famine and disease and hopefully with the League of Nations, an end to war once and forever. The one thing that no treaty could do was prevent people like Mussolini, Hitler and Stalin from coming to power as dictators. It would take another war twenty years later to prove that real peace involves more then a treaty written on paper.

[@CSSVirginia]

20:17. Lost the 14inch main guns while out fishing. Honest.

[@deaks25]

Later: Oh look, we found them behind the sofa. Didn't know they were there the whole time. Honest.

[@CSSVirginia]

@@deaks25 Helluva sofa! Hahaha

[@GearGuardianGaming]

"That is a mighty large and heavy telescope you have pointed out your window." *takes a look through it* "Hm...no lenses...is this a gun barrel?"

[@GearGuardianGaming]

@@somercet1 😂😂😂😂

[@Mirageknight2133]

Lost them in a boating accident lmao

[@briancisco1176]

Only Drach could make TREATIES interesting and fun. Nice work!

[@spyrosvassilakis4212]

Last time I was this early the Ottomans still had a navy...

[@birgaripadam7112]

That hurt😢😢😢😢

[@jimsackmanbusinesscoaching1344]

California still has a tax deduction for being a member of the former Ottoman Empire.

[@richardm3023]

@@jimsackmanbusinesscoaching1344 California also permits people to crap in the streets, so....

[@birgaripadam7112]

@@jimsackmanbusinesscoaching1344 what? why they have this law? and why they still keeping it?

[@jimsackmanbusinesscoaching1344]

@@birgaripadam7112 California does many stupid things.

[@saltmerchant749]

This is definitely one I've been looking forward to seeing more of. The concept of arms limitation in an era before nuclear weapons is just fascinating.

[@vincentcedric-4449]

When i Imagine how great it will be if drach were to make a episode on Washington Naval Treaty. Truly a surprise for me.

[@FlorinSutu]

13:04 - - - Listen after that moment, it is good that Drachinifel reminded this. The Americans installed microphones in the rooms where the Japanese delegation was living. They knew exactly what were the limits for a compliance from Japanese, and what would be too much for the Japanese to be accepted. They set the limits of the agreement exactly at the limit that the Japanese delegation would be willing to sign (reluctantly).

[@JackPrestrud]

The American intelligence coup, I understood, was cryptographic. The breaking of the Japanese diplomatic code by Herbert O. Yardley.

[@FlorinSutu]

@@JackPrestrud - - That's another story. In the instance I mentioned, they simply listened the microphones hidden in the living rooms of the Japanese.

[@Strongbeef_Hoofstomp]

Will watch later, for now have a like.

[@kerryblanchard9425]

Article XVII: "LOOKING AT YOU, GREAT BRITAIN..." Article XVIII: "LOOKING AT YOU, GERMANY. No, we don't care if you're not a signatory. We're still looking at you."

[@kerryblanchard9425]

...shit, just caught that part of the video. :)

[@Dunkerque351]

I just love the personal vendetta the British had against submarines going into this treaty.

[@DonaldMcKay3768]

Thanks Drach, I really liked this video. After being one of the co-authors of a paper on the history of US cruisers I really thought I knew the Washington Treaty fairly well. But, I had no idea that water in the side protection system of the Nelson class battleships was not counted in standard displacement. Surely this was salt water and therefore couldn't really be used as reserve feedwater? But of course, from a sea lawyer's point of view, water is, well, water. Great summary of a complex, messy political action that was as hot in its way as Jutland.

[@Boatswain_Tam]

YES! Been looking forward to this for so long! I'm surprised that this was not covered earlier, because interwar naval development was pretty much dictated by this conference and the London Naval Conference

[@許進曾]

Every naval power: You need to follow the treaty, but not me.

[@troymcmahon488]

I wounder if you could do something on the development of Japan's carrier strength. It would be interesting to see how they went from enough tonnage for 3 carriers to a 6 ship Kidō Butai along with the odd assortment of light carriers.

[@1987palerider]

Drach's theme song doesn't have to go so hard, but we're all here for it. And the top notch content

[@thatguynameddan2136]

Was strangely excited to see them referred to as the West Virginia Class instead of the Colorado. Seems far more fitting for the former flagship to carry the name of the class.

[@collinwood6573]

They are pretty unusual in that regard. Maryland was the first to be laid down, launched, and commissioned while West Virginia served as the flagship, and yet the class is usually named after Colorado.

[@ROTTERDXM]

Oh hells yes, I have been looking forward to a full in-depth Drach video about the Washington Naval Treaty ever since the human-voiced videos started! And thanks for providing so much longform content. You spoil us with the Drydocks and wednesday videos; I've been indirectly absorbing so much general geopolitical history in addition to the specifics of naval history.

[@orichilman5123]

If I may, could I request the long-awaited part 3 of the life of Lord Admiral Horatio Nelson?

[@Almond19912]

He has referenced this, drac wants to record sections onboard the victory for it and will have to wait until after lockdown to do so

[@orichilman5123]

@@Almond19912 Ah okay, fair enough. Thank you.

[@scottgiles7546]

@@Almond19912 So no Beta version? Well Drat, Drac.

[@kirbyculp3449]

I like the part where he is put in a cask of rum.

[@ISKTR114]

I've been looking forward to this episode, after the treaties being mentioned so often in all the other episodes.

[@foximacentauri7891]

I'm amazed that you can make such a dry topic so entertaining.

[@xmlthegreat]

I have listened to this a couple of times to get myself to sleep. It's brilliant stuff but Drach's voice is calm and soothing.

[@BHuang92]

British: We're making an agreement so that navies must abide "fairly" to these rules in ship numbers and what to build. *Pinky swear?*

[@johnlavery3433]

Ironically they were the ones to stuck to it the hardest. That’s weird, that’s very weird

[@fishevans6417]

@@johnlavery3433 This is around the period that the Britsh became "Well its just not sporting old chap!"

[@Edax_Royeaux]

It's a mutual agreement. If you outright violate it, you no longer get the goodies everyone else agreed to. What Japan didn't understand was it did not have the economy for it's Imperial Ambitions. What the British didn't understand was that Japan didn't understand that they did not have the economy for it's Imperial Ambitions.

[@texastea.2734]

How about a handshake

[@jjdladams82]

I learn more from these videos than any other popular history source.

[@mikejames4648]

Fascinating vid Drac, much obliged from distilling it down for us.

[@stephenpickering8063]

Drac You mention the immediate effects on the navies but I think one elephant you didn't mention was the impact on shipyards and related capacities. True from what I've heard Britain did do some subsides of key capacity [especially armour plate and big gun turret] until about 1930 but that lapsed after the depression started which along with the continuation of the building holiday meant that Britain suffered both a drastic lack of capacity when the run up to WWII started as well as a hell of a bloc obsolescence problem with the old battlefleet. The US had some of the same problem but they of course had a larger economy to recover with and were far less threatened than Britain was and had a couple of additional years to prepare for war. Japan got a vital pause from what was as you say a disastrous policy - even before the 23 quake - and was able to redirect its construction, with more emphasis on CV in the run up to war.

[@bwcdevices3028]

Excellent - an hour of Drach, that will make my shitty morning a LOT better

[@notbobrosss3670]

Even though the treaty was ultimately a disaster. It’s still amazing that they got all these nations to agree to it at all.

[@glocke380]

In John Kuehn's book, Agents of Change, he argues that the Bases Clause of the Washington Treaty caused the USN to build the longer legged fleet, mobile bases and infrastructure that was needed to win the far flung Pacific War.

[@grathian]

The mobile base force was not ready until mid 1943, and the shore infrastructure beyond the west coast wasn't started until 1939.

[@Axel0204]

Excellent work as always, Drach!

[@meansartin]

As a lawyer, this episode is DOUBLE fun for me!

[@anthonyhayes1267]

This is the one I've been waiting for

[@wnrailway]

Very interesting. Thanks for doing all of these videos. Very much appreciated. And all of these comments. Oh how I love them....

[@KillBones]

The fact of all nations agreed to the treaty but do their best to find a way to cheating is hilarious 😂

[@michaeldonahue1009]

Well, yeah. The World Powers of the early 20th century were basically a 2nd edition WH40K gaming club.

[@neiloflongbeck5705]

Yes, but in the words of Nigel Owen's, they all cheated fairly.

[@mikedrzka6701]

Extremely good video! Perfect insight to the circumstences of the most important naval treaty.

[@nekophht]

Huh. I was of the thought that the UK couldn't handle restarting the naval race. But this does make sense with how budget conscious the UK seemed to be with the military. "We could start a naval race again, but we'd much rather not be in debt."

[@enoughothis]

Arguably the most important Naval agreement of the 20th century.

[@chrisp.2544]

I do believe that I read in one of the Dulin and Garzke books that for the purposes of measuring theoretical displacement of ships, the Royal Navy rounded the weight of a 1 foot square by 1 inch thickness steel place down from 40.8 pounds to 40. Which was a nice 2% gain in available tonnage for armoring their cruisers.

[@trainzking7062]

Cheese goes on top of pasta and cheese goes on top of pizza, not the other way around. That was great Drach! Kudos

[@1KosovoJeSrbija1]

"wanted to play at the top level, but its economy simply couldn't support these expenditures long term" so me in warthunder?

[@irishwind1971]

Great video. Hoping for more covering later treaties of this era.

[@lahma69]

Great video with a very comprehensive explanation of the treaty.

[@agesflow6815]

Thank you, Drachinifel.

[@fedecano7362]

I always wondered what was the deal with the Naval treaties, what was the reason for them to take place to begin with, why would some nations agree to have their navies limited by other nations... and so on...guess it's time to get some schooling with the help as usual from professor Drach and his limitless and unparalleled knowledge about anything naval!

[@TheG1mpster]

too prevent a massive naval arms race similar to the one germany and the british empire enjoyed

[@richardcutts196]

Money! The US and Britain didn't want to spend it, while France, Italy and Japan couldn't afford to spend it. The treaty just gave everyone a way to look good while doing what they wanted/needed to do.

[@aAaa-ih3hw]

An episode on all the problems the treaty caused for building heavy cruisers and all the loopholes would be awesome

[@Voron_Aggrav]

France being properly broke and Italy wanting to get Parity with France, - Oh Italy you never fail to bemuse me Also hindsight is such fun when you consider the hilariously oversized Hood and her Fate after meeting Bismarck

[@zedoktor979]

In the end though, hood still killed Bismarck. That oil slick was her martyrdom.

[@kemarisite]

@@zedoktor979 that hit was from Prince of Wales.

[@sadwingsraging3044]

Nice breakdown Drach.

[@hrunchtayt1587]

Ok, time to do an epic gamer move! *rips up naval treaty* *lays down 10 battleship hulls* *gets stern warning from UK* *ignores* *UK declares war* *di di mao*

[@laughingsnake1989]

*laughs in 20 carrier hulls*

[@Token_Civilian]

Great vid Drach.

[@thehandoftheking3314]

Damn thought I was early as I.just got a notification. Who's in charge of KZbin signals these days? Seymour?

[@paulsakz1532]

Who's defense could be be best described as optimistic... That's got to be my new favorite Drach quote.. never change

[@br35ch]

You mentioned that Japan thought it needed 70% of the US fleet for a successful defense of the Empire against the US Navy's Pacific fleet. They got 60% instead; would the 70% threshold have made a significant difference in the Pacific War? Or would the larger Japanese fleet only exacerbate the problem of fueling their ships? Thank you! -Erik-

[@AureliusLaurentius1099]

Doesnt matter, the US Navy would just spam 10 times the ships of the IJN had

[@pedrofelipefreitas2666]

The japanese denounced the treaty by 34, so it wouldn't have mattered much i think. It's not like Japan could afford that many more ships.

[@DenmarkRadar]

The fun title could have been: "The Washington Naval Treaty - The parties, the drinks, the dances, the socializing..." ;-)

[@alexrennison8070]

This is gonna be great!

[@alexjolin2589]

The video I never knew I needed !!!!!! I was trying to read on this subject but I don’t have great patience for that. But listening to someone else teach me is great !!

[@therealboomhower9209]

Finally! I had been secretly hoping that you would make this. Hopefully in light of this all your other vids will make more sense.

[@josynaemikohler6572]

Ahhhh yes, the French. Their whole negotiation sounds like a serious delusion of grandeur. :D

[@khaelamensha3624]

Lol we are used to do that ! Have a nice day! ;)

[@LiveErrors]

This is the beginning of france not being a super power for the first time in like a 1000 years

[@jamesharding3459]

@@LiveErrors A superpower? They were _the_ superpower on the continent for something like a thousand years!

[@Αντωνηςλιυδακης]

@@khaelamensha3624 hmm algier présume

[@Troglodytarum]

@@jamesharding3459 You dumb? That's what they said.

[@earlyriser8998]

Nice to see this detail on a complex, and influential, treaty

[@HSMiyamoto]

Since strategic analysis is ultimately most important of all, breaking up the Anglo-Japanese alliance may have been the worst of American decision of all, since there was no chance that said alliance would ever be used against the USA, and ending the alliance helped the Tokyo Hotheads overwhelm prudent leaders like Yamamoto by the 1930s. The old British alliance was probably the single most important factor that might have taken the wind from the sails of the anti-European Southward Advance faction, and the USA eliminated this vital guarantee for peace in Asia.

[@gaberobison680]

It was always going to happen. The west wanted Japan to be a secondary power subservient to the white man and that was never going to stand

[@tankfighter2767]

It's so weird seeing battleships, the empty turrets of USS Michigan were especially eerie

[@tankfighter2767]

@Ability Damage it really is, seeing something graceful and beautiful almost rot away into nothing recognizable

[@juliusEST]

I had just become bored. Wait. Nevermind... Thanks Drach!

[@somerandomguy9942]

Awesome! Been waiting for this discussion awhile now, thanks Drach!

[@mrmoore2050]

10:30 cheese goes on top of pasta and pizza, and that is why the French navy needed to be better than the Italian navy in 1922... Drach, why you're not already a foreign ambassador for a major world power is beyond me. Somebody get this man diplomatic immunity and a national budget portfolio please.

[@JoeyC777]

Brilliant video Drach! Thanks for the time and research put into this.

[@jeffbybee5207]

Near the end when discussing the effect on the Japanese what ship had the office block/ barn built on it? Thankyou

[@Tevildo]

The USNR _Prairie State_ (IX-15), after conversion from the USS _Illinois_ (BB-7) in 1941. _Illinois_ was one of the ships the USN was required to decomission under the Treaty.

[@scottgiles7546]

@@Tevildo Since BB-7 was laid down in1897 requiring it to remain active would CUT USN strength. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Illinois_(BB-7)

[@papajohnloki]

was scrolling, saw cheese ref and decided to simply play video. was duly rewarded.

[@PhysicsGamer]

What in the name of all that floats is the thing pictured at 47:29 ?? It looks like some horrifying combination of a barn, a boat, and (just from the chute looking thing sticking out to the side) a combine harvester.

[@JAAGen01]

Barracks ship I would imagine.

[@Carl_Aznable]

I was in the room the thumbnail was taken in about a yr ago. It's now a library at the Daughters Of The American Revolution Constitution Hall. I saw this photo and immediately thought of our man, Drach!

[@gcrav]

41:53 Always put on your dress shoes when using a cutting torch!

[@gayprepperz6862]

My friend, you have become a "go to source" for detailed information for naval knowledge with detatailed information of historical facts, little known, but historically important. I love your channel. If you should (by necessity considering You-tubes ever changing policies) need financial support, I will happily provide as much as my limited budget can support, because you are a very well researched and definitive source of historical fact, and nu-biased at that. COVID has taken a toll on so many of us, but your historical research and presentation is a source worth supporting, and preserving, and I would happily contribute to your effort to preserve history in it's honest and UN-adulteraltered truth.

[@helcarexe0040]

"Cheese goes on top of pizza" No one told Chicago deep dish that

[@catfish552]

That's hardly pizza, is it. That's just a travesty.

[@LiveErrors]

isnt that just a Cheese Pie?

[@thehandoftheking3314]

It's not a pizza, but it's still delicious

[@scottgiles7546]

Anyone dissing Chicago Deep Dish Pizza has only had corporate deep dish, not Hole-In-The-Wall Deep Dish. (Kids today!)

[@iankocur8397]

@@scottgiles7546 hole-in-the-wall ain't a whole lot better, New York still wins everytime :P

[@trevynlane8094]

Looking forward to the video on the London Navel Treaties.

[@bakaneko113]

Keep up the awesome work Love the cheese explanation 🤣

[@diogenes34]

Thanks for your excellent explanation of the treaty this gave me a much better understanding.

[@sRazor96]

10:45 Have you never heard of Chicago Deep dish Drach?

[@49Chevy]

Chicago Deep Dish is not pizza. Jon Stewart rant etc.

[@philliprandle9075]

Can't wait for you to go over the London Naval treaty.

[@jaredgup6537]

"loophole abuse" This means you japan.

[@VersusARCH]

Everyone tried to cheat, just in different ways.

[@richardtaylor1652]

@@VersusARCH Easier when everyone just blames the Japanese.

[@aldariontelcontar]

More like "everybody except the Britsh". Brits didn't abuse loopholes, they just fit the laws to their needs.

[@richardtaylor1652]

@Ability Damage Brits got worse off but not at the same time I guess... I mean the capital ships restrictions sucked, but they ended up doing well on carriers. Cruisers was a non-issue because they can just pump them out whenever and wherer ever. They lost the submarine argument. Naval bases though well... Singapore is not too bad but still allowed the Japanese do whatever they want without much threat. Probably the biggest loss was the their treaty with Japan which left the Royal Navy exposed which the Japanese exploited in 1941-1942.

[@aldariontelcontar]

@Ability Damage They did. What I was referring to was the definition of displacements. Standard displacement prior to the treaties included fuel and reserve feed water, but this was changed in the treaty to excluding fuel and water, specifically due to British overseas commitments.