WesWorld

Rules as written or as intended?


Major concern was voiced over by some of the CT signataries about the recently published details of the Zeven Provinciën's planned rebuild. Both ships are intended to be updated to new standards in 1930, and some of the details of the rebuild may cause major discussions about the Cleito Treaty as it now stands, it's aplications and its intentions.


Both battlecruisers of the dutch navy are to lose their "Q" turret in an update that also covers the loss of the upper belt, increasing of main gun caliber and improvement of deck armor, between many other details; many of them are supposedly forbidden under the Cleito Treaty.

The letter of the Treaty explicitly says that no ship should be reconstructed with a change of number of main guns, nor its caliber. It also forbids changes of side armor, something including into the planned rebuild. However, on the public press conference given, the SubSecretary of Defence assured that those changes are not illegal under the Treaty's clauses:

"The treaty is explicit and clear: no reconstructed ship can go through the modifications the Zeven Provinciëns will suffer. However, both battlecruisers are to be REBUILT, not reconstructed, so the Cleito Treaty Clauses won't apply in this particular case and so, the Kingdom of Netherlands won't be breaking any point we agreed and signed upon in the past".


Soon some questions were raised about the spirit of the clause itself. As some clever periodist asked him, wouldn't it be ridiculous that reconstructed ships couldn't go through those modifications ,while rebuilt ships can?. The SubSecretary answered in clear terms:

"Ridiculous or not, the treaty is written and sealed, we all agreed upon it, and what it says it's what it says. In any case the ministry of Defence is surprised about so much fuss about this matter: if we are -we're in fact not- breaking the treaty it is to DECREASE the protection and number of guns on the ship, not to increase it other than on the deck, turrets and CT armor, something the Treaty doesn't mention at all. It's true that the ships will be carrying bigger guns, but no less true is that there will be only six of them."


In any case the Navy high command is adamant about the issue: the ZPs will be rebuilt, and will be so under the already specified parameters.


Seems we're on the verge of some hot diplomatic battles regarding the Cleito Treaty...

The Manila Times
16 February 1926

Statement of Admiral de la Vega in response to the comments regarding the Cleito Naval Arms Limitation Treaty made in the February issue of Dutch Naval Forces:

"In many ways, we agree with the opinions of our Dutch neighbors. The removal of armament should not be restricted; indeed the very idea seems to be directly opposed to the idea of a 'disarmament' treaty.

"We have some concerns of our own with regards to the current Treaty. For instance, many caliber restrictions are set at 153mm. The Marina de Filipinas' standard medium caliber gun is 155mm. Should we be forced to install 2mm liners in our guns?

"However, we are strictly opposed to the suggestion that gun caliber can be increased if the number of guns is decreased. This runs counter to both the spirit and letter of the Treaty.

"Should it be decided to call a conference of the Treaty Powers, either now or at the 'scheduled' 1929 date, the Philippines and the city of Manila offer their services to host that conference.

"I should issue a warning, however, that if there is not a Treaty modification implemented allowing an increase in capital ships' gun sizes - and we neither expect or support such a modification, indeed, we oppose it - and the Dutch proceed with such a modification to the Zeven Provenciens, the Philippines will likely be forced to withdraw from the Treaty of Cleito, and will strongly encourge its allies to do likewise."


And so the gauntlet is thrown...

We are disturbed by the strained reasoning supporting the Dutch position, specifically by the specious distinction being drawn between the terms "rebuilt" and "reconstructed". This gives us grounds to question whether the Dutch government take their committments seriously. If the Dutch government are determined on this course of action, our governments will seek redress on this issue at the League of Nations... initially...

This could be a fun year.....

Chile, not being a signature of the Cleito Treaty, has no formal responce to the Dutch plan of action, other than to point out that the Dutch should be wary of there own actions. The Netherland may or may not want to start an arms race, but the other nations of the world may not see things in the light which they are intended.

De Telegraaf
18 February 1926


Following the issues raised by several foreign newspapers and governments regarding the future rebuilding of the Zeven Provinciën class Battlecruisers the Minister of Defence said:


"We've paid attention to all the concerns and voices raised with our navy's plans to rebuild the Zeven Provinciën class battlecruisers. In some senses we can understand them, but on the other side we fail to see where the blame can be put on us.

"It's clear that the statements heard so far by several foreign governments don't realice one thing: the treaty of Cleito expressely forbids certain modification to reconstructed ships, making no mention, at all, to rebuilt ships. As the public opinion is well aware of, the Zeven Provinciëns are going to be rebuilt, not reconstructed, and as such, in their future form they won't be illegal by any means nor under any circunstances.


"We find deeply disturbing some of the implicit warnings made by the French and Russian, and even the Filipino republics about the measures they are about to take or those they may be willing to. We'd understand them if the Dutch government would be willing to break a signed treaty. However, this government and this ministry challenge the Filipino, French and Russian experts to find where, exactly, is written in the CT that rebuilt ships can't legally suffer the modifications the Zeven Provinciën will.

"if they are able to display the points where it's forbidden to conduct a rebuild like the one the Zeven Provinciëns are going to go through, we will immediately call down the modifications.


"We repeat: The Cleito Treaty is explicit and clear enough: there are certain modifications that cant't, legally, be done on reconstructed ships. There is none clause, part, term, or even allusion to rebuilt ships.


"It can be said that the Cleito Treaty's spirit is being broken by this plans, and that we're playing a loophole into the Treaty's words: we also fail to see how. The spirit of the treaty is to stop shipbuilding and arms races around the world. We're respecting this spirit.

"Given that the Zeven Provinciëns are 1915 ships with almost 15 years on their keels, and that the Dutch government could get two much more capable ships in similar displacements building them today than the rebuilt Zeven Provinciën ever be.

"by the current clauses affecting the reconstruction of capital warships (and not that of rebuilding) the Zeven Provinciën class battlecruisers would have no chance to be modified to meet a decent level of modern-standard bassic needs. No turrets can be removed. No side armor can be even touched. There can't be substraction or addition of main guns.

"The only way to give the Zeven Provinciën class a new blow of life is to increase the caliber of their main guns, remove the now-proven useless upper belt and one of her turrets to give clearance to hangars, cranes and catapult. If that modification was forbidden by the Cleito Treaty (I repeat, it's not), the destiny of those ships would be the scrapeyard ,and the building of two completely new ships which met those standards.

"And I dare to ask to all those governments around the world critizing our plans: Wouldn't be a much more threatening event for the world's peace (if there is any at all) to lay the keel of two brand new ships than simply rebuilding two old ships to modern standards, which won't be as good as the new ones?. This government thinks so. And so, this government also thinks that this measure, while it can be seen as a somewhat twist of the spirit of the treaty, in no way violates it.


"In any case the letter of the treaty is plain to see for everyone: Netherland's won't ever break the word given, and our word given is bound to the Cleito Treaty's clauses in this issue. We will comply those clauses to the milimeter: that means, the planned rebuild of Zeven Provinciëns will happen as scheduled.


"There is another way to solve this thing, and is renegotiating certain clauses of the Cleito Treaty to bring them to more understandable and/or reasonable levels. If all, without exception, the signataries of the treaty agree to, Netherlands would be willing to put the plan on a temporal "hold" situation and listen to possible solutions. In that case we would gladly accept the Filipino invitation to held a conference at Manila to discuss the matter, and send plenipotenciary diplomats to the Filipino capitol.


"Otherwise. works on the Zeven Provinciëns will go ahead as planned.



(some technical details of the new proposed ship to replace the Zeven Provinciën class BCs vs the planned rebuild, to back up the Dutch Minister of Defence's words on new ships vs rebuild ships)


Zeven Provinciën rebuild specifications:

Displacement:
26.188 t light; 27.278 t standard; 29.394 t normal; 31.087 t full load


6x345mm main guns
16x100mm DP secondary guns
28x40mm AA guns
8x20mm AA guns

30.4knots top speed, 8400nm@15knots

360mm main belt
135mm armor deck
395mm turret face



Zeven Provinciën successor specifications:

Displacement:
26.481 t light; 27.655 t standard; 29.800 t normal; 31.516 t full load


6x360mm main guns
16x130mm DP secondary guns
28x40mm AA guns
8x20mm AA guns

30.25 knots top speed, 8400nm@15 knots

380mm main belt
146mm armor deck
395mm turret face

The United States has no objection to the REMOVAL of turrets and their associated barbettes. As for the modifications proposed by the Dutch, their arguements do have merit. Obviously, however, there are elements of the treaty that require clarification, least the treaty system collapse.

Signed,
Curtis D. Wilbur
Secretary of the Navy

OOC:

Quoted

Originally posted by Ithekro
This could be a fun year.....

That's the intention . After some thought I decided to stir a bit the pot...wanted to have a bit of fun world-wide diplomatic action in the SIM...seems I chose the right way to do it, hehehehe


IC:

Heard on the Dutch Radio News Reports, and regarding the Chilean, coming from a high authority within the dutch fleet...



"It's interesting how Chile, a non-signatary nation we, of course, have no quarrel at all with, warns us about a possible big arms race between the main naval forces of the world.

"interesting because, on one side Chile is a non-signatary nation of the CT -so it's herself able to do whatever sees fit.

"On the other side it's interesting because we fail to see how trying to avoid the need to build two of the new ships (of which general details are already known and visibly much better than those of the rebuilt Zeven Provinciëns), violates the spirit of the treaty -supposed to put a stop to naval construction,something we're trying to do with this plan- or initiates an arms race...

"-One starts an arms race by BUILDING new ships...not by modernizing old ones!!!!


"We are glad, however, that the US authorities see at least the bottom of the issue at discussion: Netherland's willing to comply with the treaty spirit, however the letter won't let us if the CT clause regarding reconstructions is also applied to rebuilds...

Please see the updated communique from my government. Regretfully an earlier draft was released to the public before a final opinion was arrived at. Those responsible have been assigned to be naval liaisons at our antarctic station. We apologize for any confusion on this matter.

The Chileans of course are simply warning the Dutch as to how the other nations might react....but has no problem with the modifications themselves, or the reasons behind them. (nor legal has any ability to shape the treaty aside from being an outside influence)

We aknowledge the error in the initial transcript...see our updated transcript ,also edited avobe

and we send our best wishes to those who transmitted the wrong text...that is, we hope they don't freeze too soon, so the suffering's longer

We to some extent agree with the Dutch position. The spirit of the treaty would imply that a capital ships number of guns should be allowed to be reduced but not increased in individual size . That is to say a ship with 10x14" guns in five turrets could have one turret removed but the indevidual caliber of each remaining gun must remain the same.

In reguards to armor, the armor scheme of older vessels is becoming obsolete with uniform main belt thicknesses being the norm and the upper belt concept being abandoned. We see no reason why older ships should not have their upper belts removed and the main belt extended upwards to meet the horizontal deck protection.

Untill a true treaty modification is made we cannot support the opinion that the main caliber of capital ships can be changed to conform to the maximum caliber allowed by the treaty presently. In our opinion a rebuild should allow for improvements to a ships protection but not offensive capability's.

In Hyderabad, the Raj was asked about Dutch plans to rebuild two battlecruisers.

"You know that a cornerstone of my foreign policy is that the Dutch are always wrong? Perhaps I need to revise it to usually wrong.

"My legal advisors have considered the Dutch arguments and tell me their case is very solid. They did tell me that it might be against the spirit of the treaty, but that just tells me that there's an Atlantean or Nordish legal drafter who's lucky not to be researching snowflake shapes in Greenland.

"No, at the end of the day, we're bound by the words on the paper - not those in somebody's mind. If this means the Dutch choose a path whose outcome is less ideal than new construction, you'll hear no complaints from me.

"This probably offers an out to countries with small armored cruisers or pre-dreadnoughts they'd like to use in other ways, I suppose", the Raj concluded, before returning to his meeting with his minister of agriculture.

(ooc)

I'm surprised that the Raj reacted so calmly...perhaps I shouldn't have been quite so, ah, stern?


Although perhaps you should be glad it was Almirante de la Vega responding. The Honourable Foreign Minister would have declared war on the spot. ^_^

Hmmm...

"Very nice, all very nice...and amusing I have to state. The Dutch Governments arguments seem solid and wisely chosen" a white-haired South African politician is heard to mutter. "I just wonder where they found the word rebuild within the text of the Cleito Treaty.... Hmmm... Probably I need to go to the doctor to get stronger glasses?"

that Dutch naval architechts are able to fit a turret for 2x345mm onto a barbette that previously supported 2x310mm. The French and Russian governments imagine that ammunition handling in the barbette will be complicated by difficulties managing the larger, heavier shells inside a space designed for smaller shells, for, as we all know, expanding a barbette can only be done during a reconstruction...

Quoted

Originally posted by AdmKuznetsov
that Dutch naval architechts are able to fit a turret for 2x345mm onto a barbette that previously supported 2x310mm. The French and Russian governments imagine that ammunition handling in the barbette will be complicated by difficulties managing the larger, heavier shells inside a space designed for smaller shells, for, as we all know, expanding a barbette can only be done during a reconstruction...

I suggest you give a second look at the already shown drawings on the technical board...the ZPs have 9.5-m diameter barbettes, and turrets big enough to house a 2x13.58'' mount ...

no work is needed on barbettes, at all ,there's enough space to handle 345mm ammunitio

Hi RAM,

could you please help me? I got the strong feeling you´re mixing ingame character play with out-of-game player rules. :o/

In game (roleplaying) you let the Dutch Government argue that the ships are rebuild and not reconstructed. Correct?

If so, could you please explain to me where you found the word "rebuild" in the CT or point me to a place where we have an in-game definition of "rebuild" and "reconstruction"?

As it is - afaik - the CT speaks of reconstruction in the sense of "every kind of modification to the original design". There are no different categories of modifications.

On the other hand we have those player rules (infrastructure rules) that explain what players can do in WesWorld. Here we have several categories for modifications named refit, rebuild and reconstruction but this wording has nothing to do with the wording used in the CT. The hierachy they provide is for the purpose of calculating costs and not to be applied to in-game roleplaying (thus the CT). That was never intended. There is no link between the reconstruction-rule and the word "reconstructed" in the Treaty.

One applies to the level of modifications to the original design to allow us to calculate factory output while the other refers to any modification in general. This should (and could) not be mixed.

Hence I - as a player - think your planned modifications are illegal and you should correct your plans (as I did with the HERTOGs which originally should have emerged from the docks with 30,5cm guns after their rebuild) but in-game I won´t bust your fun for the reasions already posted (alliance).

To avoid this kind of problem in the future I propose to change the wording of the infrastructure rules to "level of modification A to C".

What do you think, Gentlemen?

I agree, we do need to clear up the inconsistancy between the CT and the infrastructure rules, by perhaps rewording them so they conform to the CT rules.

Quoted

Originally posted by HoOmAn
Hi RAM,

could you please help me? I got the strong feeling you´re mixing ingame character play with out-of-game player rules. :o/

oh... ok, I see your point, Hoo...maybe I'm confussing things, something explainable by the fact that I wasn't around while the CT was being discussed (so losing the meaning of "reconstruction" within it's context), and the infrastructure rules set.

It doesn't also help that I saw the "rebuild" as a big modification within the limits of a given hull, and "Reconstruction" as in fact using the existing hull to build a (potentially) totally different one.


However, after reading your post I understand that the meaning of "Reconstruction" was used in the CT referring to both terms without distinction. Had this been an in-game slip, I would still go ahead, after all finding loopholes around the rules and trying to go through there is something many nations did with the WT .

However as it see the word was used with a mutual understanding as PLAYERS (and not in-game-nations) that it was meant to imply both types of work on the ship, I won't oppose to a rewording of the treaty, changing all the places where "reconstruction" appears by "reconstruction OR REBUILD".


And of course this would mean that I'm cheating on the letter of the treaty...because there would be no loophole to take advantage from.

However the case is still open: I'll work on another message where I can update the Dutch opinion on the matter in a different way (the argument about trying to avoid building new ships still stands), without using the written-text loophole in the Cleito Treaty...because I'm sure that in few hours the treaty will be reworded as I suggested and no hole left open for me to "cheat" on