WesWorld

The IC thread for the London Naval Conference held during August 1944.

A bunch of Admirals and civil servants in a large smoke filled room...

Admiral Ricardo Quintero: "Well...good morning. This is an unexpected development, and one for which I do not have comprehensive instructions from my government.

"At present, Iberia is in a rebuilding phase of sorts. Elements of our fleet have been neglected and require modernization, replacement, or supplementation. Our major defensive alliance has dissolved, requiring that we take extra steps to support fleet deployments and ensure the mobility of our major combattants.

"When we look overseas, we see Iberian provinces adjacent to potential threats that are not currently represented at the table. In the Americas, the provinces of Central America and the Caribbean share a border with bellicose Mexico. Mexico's naval power is exaggerated well beyond its actual industrial capability by the willingness of its friends to sell vast quantities of warships to it. In Asia, the province of San Hainando lies offshore of a Chinese empire that has long pledged aggression against its neighbours and whose ability to project power has been significantly increased by its ability to purchase middle-aged major combattants from other nations.

"Given that there are some indications of Mexican assistance to the Chinese in their current attack on Chosen, Iberia must assume that the two nations would cooperate in an attack against Iberian territory. Consequently, Iberia must ensure its own naval forces are capable of eliminating both threats before either threat can inflict severe damage on our provinces.

"At present, I believe this limits Iberia's disarmament options. I believe we can agree to a holiday on capital ship construction; most of you will probably agree that the battleship is probably being eclipsed by the aircraft carrier anyway. We suspect we can also agree to a limit on the size of aircraft carriers constructed in the near term. Anything beyond that, including a cap on the number of aircraft carriers constructed, depends largely on the international community's willingness to crack down on warship sales.

"Thank you."

Having given due consideration of his Iberian colleague’s words, the chief of the German delegation, Vizeadmiral Theodor Krancke, spoke.

"My Government is very much concerned with the haste in which the conference has been called; however, if a rational scheme of limitation or reduction of naval armaments can be achieved, Germany is quite prepared to consider any result. A chief concern is the fact that this conference seems to focus on reductions in Europe alone, and not a world-wide solution to the growth in naval armaments; Germany sees this as a major stumbling block."

He paused but a moment before continuing. "Admiral Quintero has touched upon a significant subject - the predatory attitude of the Chinese Empire and the implied threat of the continued growth of its naval power - not only to Iberia, but to Germany's ally France, and to the other peaceful nations of Asia. Within the last four years China has embroiled itself in two major conflicts with its neighbours, and has shown little predilection for avoiding a third in the future. This threat, in no way addressed by this conference, will make conclusion of any agreement on the limitation of smaller warships - cruisers and the like - chimerical, and for larger warships more symbolic than real."

Krancke detected a slight nod of agreement from Quintero. "The German Government notes with concern that there are nations who seem to treat warships as a commodity to be bought and sold; this is an attitude that Germany does not countenance. The transfer of warships from one power to another is an act with appropriate consequences; it is something that should not be taken without appropriate discussions. However, the German Government cannot, and will not, agree to a universal imposition of a ban on the construction of naval vessels for export or for the transfer abroad of existing naval vessels surplus to requirements. The German Government would support the drafting of protocols that would address the needless trafficking in warships."

Krancke took a sip of water. "Germany is amenable to a proposal for a capital ship building holiday for a specified period; it is likewise amenable to proposals for certain qualitative and quantitative limits on certain classes of warships. It is opposed to any limitations on the geographic deployment of existing naval assets."

Contre-amiral Alonzo Fonde-LaPatrie says nothing, but begins working on his glass of wine. Similarly, lead negotiator Aubin Didon, the assistant minister of marine, says nothing and waits for the conversation to get underway.

The British delegation is led by Vice Admiral Sir Geoffrey Blake, the Assistant Chief Naval Staff, and the senior civil servant from the Admiralty is Sir Horace Erdington.

Vice Admiral Blake nodded in agreement as Vizeadmiral Krancke, spoke and when he had finished he shuffled his papers.
"The rational for this conference is to get all the European naval powers together and discuss the reality that peace seems likely to prevail over Europe for the foreseeable future. I think we all agree that the Chinese threat is perhaps the most pressing to world peace at this moment and for the foreseeable future [1]. We would all agree that we never have enough ships for the tasks at hand in peacetime, let alone war. That is why we have sought allies for mutual support and gained collective security in the bargain for most of the nations represented here. It makes to further reduce the tensions in Europe and prevent a continuation of the arms race since the end of the Cleito-era almost a decade ago. The more we lessen the threat and suspicion to each other and limit the kinds of prestige showboats to make our neighbours jealous, the more we can free our home-based ships for duties further afield. I appreciate that the German Navy has least overseas commitments than most navies here but it is also in the unique situation of having two strong naval powers on each flank to aid its protection and its relatively secure position within the Baltic, with only a relatively short North Sea coast to defend. Thus we feel Germany has the ability to perhaps offer the most to supporting overseas operations of her allies, even with the current assets she possesses today. The Royal Navy maintains three equal fleets across the globe and maintains a constant watch in all oceans of the world safeguarding trade and we would prefer to use more resources for that, than tying ships up at anchor in Britain awaiting a threat that may never materialise in our lifetime of a repeat of the Great War. To ease Vizeadmital Krancke's concerns, we do seek a holiday for the largest classes of warships but we do not intend limiting smaller light cruisers and destroyers and sloops because these are the precisely the most useful fleet ships at the present time for the bulk of fleet duties beyond major fleet operations.

The issue of exports is a thorny one. Britain does not usually sell decommissioned warships to any nation beyond the Commonwealth, unless the nation concerned is friendly to the United Kingdom or her allies. Britain does not usually build new ships for export unless the same criteria are met. Several smaller navies, like the Philippine navy have restructured and disposed of many surplus warships. For most small nations the income is often vital to building plans. However, it may be of some assistance that nations like China spend a large proportion acquiring and maintaining floating scrap rather than building modern warships. Britain has in the past considered buying vessels of certain types to prevent them falling into undesirable hands, but often the cost is too much for the Treasury to bear. All this conference can hope is to spread awareness of these issues in Europe."


[1] I assume OOC and IC that by August 1944 the Chinese would have been victorious in the Sino-Chosen War or at the least looking like winning.

Admiral Quintero: "I agree with Vizeadmiral Krancke's concern about the geographic scope of this current discussion. I can certainly see the difficulty for the United States in contemplating self-limitation when it's not entirely clear what or why the Japanese are building. That, in turn, creates some uncertainty for Iberia given our past rivalry with the States and our current relationships with Mexico. Still, even if we keep this conference limited to Europe, we may still find that we are able to reach out to the major non-European powers and say to them, 'We are limiting ourselves here and here - will you do the same?'

"The alternative may be to seek to have the major non-European powers join us at this table. Atlantis (1) and South Africa have traditionally been honorable participants in naval arms limitation talks, and the Japanese can be reasoned with. If we have them onboard, it leaves only a few minor powers capable of building major warships - essentially Canada and Australia, the ABC powers, India, and China - as wildcards to consider in our discussions."



(1): Wes hasn't posted here and Atlantis isn't technically European, hence the mention.

Contrammiraglio Angelo Iachino of the Mariana Militare stands. "The Republic of Italy agrees with the statements in regard to the limitations of warships with respect to deployments abroad. Nations should have the ability to defend areas that are under there protection without compromise. However, Vice Admiral Blake is correct when he speaks of the peace that prevails over Europe that shows no signs of weakness. We do not need another Great War, one was far to many. Italy wishes that any terms agreed to by this assembly serves only to limit those forces that are beyond what is deemed necessary for ensuring the continued security of their territory both in Europe and overseas. We feel this can be accomplished with less capital units then are currently in service and under construction. The key point of any such agreement must resolve this question; What is required for the defense of the national interest? Italy proposes that the nations present here show how they expect there forces that are not assigned to duty overseas in peacetime are to be used in the event of war that threatens the security of these oversea possessions, in order to allow this assembly a opportunity to use that information to inform our discussion."

"With regards to the selling of warships. While Italy has sold capital ships in the past, we have done so while keeping the likely use of them under there new owners in mind. Clearly China has broken the trust that such ships would be used only for defensive goals. Italy would proposed that any warship that meets the definition of a capital ship or large cruiser under the text here be forbidden from sale and must ether be scraped or rendered incapable of offensive action."

Assistant Minister Didon: "The Republic of France agrees that with the Iberian delegate that we should reach out to the non-European naval powers - Japan, South Africa, and the like - in order to collaborate with them as partners. Otherwise, the Republic of France does not believe any agreement could be made that is both meaningful and survivable."

Admiral Ernst King of the USN stands: "Gentlemen, the United States is not indisposed towards a general limitation of warships, but unless all the Great Naval Powers are involved we are merely limiting ourselves while placing no limits on those for whom the status quo is not agreeable. The United States government is willing to discuss a large ship holiday providing either the other Great Naval Powers are signatories or those involved in these talks are willing to participate in some sort of Agreement where we agree to maintain the status quo, with force if necessary. Otherwise, we are merely weakening ourselves and strengthening the non-signatories, commendable as our efforts may seem.

Failing that, the United States is prepared to dispose of all capital ships constructed prior to the Tennessee and Lexington classes, 4 being scrapped immediately, and the New Mexico class being scrapped when two replacement ships for the seven are completed. These proposed ships would not exceed Cleito limits. The United States is willing to halt all future warship sales after the proposed Agreement comes into force, save those which are agreed beforehand if all other signatories are also willing to agree to this. Regarding territorial claims, and posturing by other powers, the United States is willing to agree to respect the current territorial boundaries by all signatories, and not partake in any actions that would either encourage posturing by other nations on signatories territories, or participate in whatever fashion in aggressive actions by other nations on signatories, if the other signatories to this agreement are willing to also agree to this. Obviously, if a signatory is involved in an aggressive action against a nation to whom the United States has an interest in their independence and ability to act as a sovereign nation, such agreement would be null and void.

China has been desiring to change the status quo in the East by aggressive actions rather than peaceful means for some time, something that the United States firmly opposes. It is therefore the policy of the United States government to maintain a powerful fleet in the Pacific Ocean to act as a deterrent and hopefully a containment, which may be a comfort to those with interests in the region. We cannot do so, if we also have to maintain an equivalent fleet in the Atlantic, something that our agreement with the other nations in NATO was designed to do. A wider agreement, even if it is a drawing down of naval forces from an area of little potential tension, to one where the potential for tension is much greater would be welcomed by the United States.

Vice Admiral Blake rose and cleared his throat.

"In front of the delegates is our first proposal to reach some kind of agreement on these issues covered in the initial discussions. I turn now to page one.


Capital Ship Building Holiday
No construction of new battleships and battlecruisers with a main armament including and exceeding a calibre of 12 inches and a tonnage over 20,000 tons (light) and aircraft carriers exceeding 45,000 tons (light) for a period of five years. This would not prejudice construction of such vessels for export to non-signatory nations. This would not prejudice refitting or rebuilding of existing ships.

Reduction of Home Based Naval Forces
Each nation shall lay out its force requirements in terms of hulls and overall tonnage for all capital ships, aircraft carriers (capacity over 12 aircraft and vessels with through-decks), heavy cruisers, light cruisers and submarines for stationed or routinely operated for the majority of the year in overseas stations, excluding the vessels of colonial territories that have semi-independent or independent naval forces, in peacetime.
Each nation shall also lay out its requirements for wartime reinforcements or forces of operations in colonies and in support of allies beyond the immediate geography of coastal waters surrounding the western European landmass that are normally stationed in home ports.
Each nation so also lay out how many home-based vessels will remain uncommitted to overseas use and therefore assumed to be for home defence. All three calculations may take into account ships under construction during of Q1/1945 and to complete during or after that quarter and also existing vessels being disposed of by sale or scrapping before or during that quarter. Excludes disarmed vessels, hulked vessels and small submarines less than 100 tons surfaced displacement.
These tonnages and hull numbers will be protected by Treaty to form the peacetime maximum overseas fleet and the required home-based forces to reinforce and support will similarly be protected from inclusion within the reduction calculation.
A proportion equal to 15% (rounded down to nearest whole number for hulls) of the wartime home-based reinforcements of each category will be added to the non-included home fleet to represent that tonnage/ hull numbers required for peacetime training.
The tonnage/ hull number reduction will be equal to 50% (rounded up to nearest whole number for hulls) of the remaining Non-committed Home-Based force. Those ships must be scrapped within a year and existing ships can only be replaced on a one-for-one basis once the existing vessel has reached its replacement age – this rule will apply to ALL vessels within each of the three categories effectively freezing overall fleet size. Armament may be stored and reused on new construction or refitting.
The replacement ages will be: capital ships 25 years, aircraft carriers 20 years, heavy cruisers 25 years, light cruisers 20 years, submarines 15 years. The capital ship holiday applies to the relevant categories of vessels regardless of replacement age.

I now open the floor for discussion and questions upon this proposal."


[OOC I know this has been shot down OOC, but here is the chance to comment on it IC and stoke some debate and ideas]

Admiral Ernst King looks at the British distrustfully:

"So long as the USN has only 6 modern capital ships, built after 1930, compared to 15 British, 11 Iberian, 12 German, 9 Italian, 11 Japanese, 10 French, 12 Afrikaaner, the United States will not agree to a capital ship building holiday."

Assistant Minister Didon: "The French delegation does not see any advantages to this proposal. It favors the countries with the largest empires and penalizes those countries without them."

OOC: Down with a cold today and I don't have much interest in debating something that's already been shot down.

Vizeadmiral Theodor Krancke listened carefully to Admiral Blake's recitation of the proposals set before the assembled delegates. While others responded, he consulted his instructions and conferred with his staff. After some moments he rose to speak.

"The proposed limitations on the construction of capital ships mirrors the outlook of my government," he began. "However, in view of the limited number of participants at this conference my government is reluctant to formally bind itself to these limitations in the absence of universal agreement among all powers."

The look on the faces of the other delegates indicated that this stance was of no surprise to them; he then continued.

"Further, my government is quite concerned about this rather confusing proposal to limit fleet strengths in home waters versus fleet strengths deployed abroad. From my government’s understanding of this proposal the possession of territories beyond the European land mass is to be used to justify the existence of the bulk of the naval forces of the participants at this conference. Germany has no such overseas possessions, nor does it seek them; however, that does not mean that Germany does not have interests across that seas that it may find need to defend. This does not refer to the commitments we have made to any ally, but to the protection of legitimate German interests around the globe. This proposal appears to imply that nations lacking such overseas possessions have no need for naval forces beyond what other nations consider proper levels for home defence. This is an assumption that my government cannot accept. In view of both the limited participation in this conference, and in its inherent bias, my government cannot accept the second proposal now before us."

Contrammiraglio Iachino rises. "Italy echos the sentiments of the French delegation. While the idea makes sense in theory, in practice it becomes much more difficult and subject to gaming." Turning to the US delegation. "A slight correction to your figures Admiral. Counting the two battleships under construction, the Mariana Militare only possesses seven battleships layed down after 1930. The other two were constructed prior to 1930."

Admiral King dips his head towards Admiral Iachino, "no doubt sir, your knowledge of your navy is better than mine. The point from the position of the United States remains valid. Referring home waters, that too is valid, for what are the Home waters of the United States, and we like Germany have no overseas colonies, merely economic and political interests. This proposal seems beneficial indeed to those with colonial empires while penalizing those of us without."

*Admiral King continues to look at the British with distrust*

Admiral King's internal monologue, "remember, if they argue the sky is blue say it's green"

"As is yours of the United States Navy" Iachino replies "The goal was not to undermine your statement, but merely to ensure that the figures were accurate."

Admiral Quintero: "I don't think there's anything fundamentally disagreeable with the British proposal; obviously our numbers would reflect the possibility of a coordinated Mexican/Chinese attack and some caution about the behaviour of their allies.

"The American position on capital ships is no doubt unfortunate for the USN, but I think my government could be amenable to some sort of...limited building allowance, I suppose...in return for action on the used warship issue that vexes us."

Ambassador Dosanjh, representing Bharat, does not seem inclined to speak thus far.

Admiral Quintero nods and scribbles: "That is certainly a possibility; however, the Mexicans don't strictly buy American. It would be simpler and more effective if a broader understanding could be reached.

OOC: Rocky contemplates arguing with himself about Bharati exports to Iberia's rivals...