This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Washington Naval Conference article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | This article was nominated for merging with Washington Naval Treaty on September 2108. The result of the discussion was The September 2018 merge proposal was ignored so the 2009 unanimous oppose prevails.. |
I cannot find the discussion for the merge proposal with Washington Naval Treaty, in either of both articles. Hence, I'm registering my opinion in both:
Kind regards, DPdH ( talk) 08:01, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
This article is missing information regarding the terms placed upon Japan regarding ship construction:
- They may not build additional Battleships for 10 years. - Naval Tonnage between Japan and the US/Britain would not exceed an agreed upon ration (3/5 I believe)
There is also no mention of the Italian or French participation in the Treaty. Source: History 12 Student Workbook by Jerry Falk, Hazelmere Publishing. Can anyone with a more complete source of data fill in a few lines on this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.48.58.148 ( talk) 03:03, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
The main feat of that conference was the US dictat to Britannia to no longer rule the waves, but to be content with a naval power never greater than that of the USA. This conference marks a decisive turning point in international power relations. No longer did Britannian rule the waves, except on the Last Night of the Proms in Albert Hall, but the USA. To color this as a "disarmament conference" is ridiculous. -- L.Willms ( talk) 01:47, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
There is an aspect of the results of the Washington Naval Treaty that seems to be missed. The various European nations of the world had been at peace since the Napoleonic War and technology had had been developing a an increasingly rapid rate. Despite the considerable amount of theorising and deduction by warship designers it was difficult to predict successful design and some serious mistakes had been made.
The various naval actions of the Russo-Japanese war seem to show that a fleet action was likely rather than the WW1 real action mostly fought between small ships and against the U boats
When the warships were finally tested under real combat conditions in WW1 warship design received a very considerable input of design. The agreed warship conditions after the signing of the WNC gave naval architects,designers and armed forces generally time to evaluate a whole series of combat lessons and work the hard learned lessons and improvements into a new generation of large warships, mostly just in time for WW2. It was indeed a decidedly useful respite AT Kunene 123 ( talk) 11:47, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
The background states: "Women had just won the right to vote in many countries, and they helped convince politicians that money could be saved, votes won, and future wars avoided by stopping the arms race" ...and the reference for this is page 10 of Michael Turner's Britain and the World in the 20th Century. As far as I can see the quoted reference at that point does not actually connect either the conference or the wider disarmament movement of the early 1920s to the widening of female suffrage. Also, while some of the participant nations had enfranchised women in the immedate post WW1 period, others, notably France and Japan were yet to do so. If the statement is true can we find a better source? If not, ought it to be deleted? Blythtyneboi ( talk) 12:19, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
At the Washington Naval Conference, the five powers also agreed to a "Treaty relating to the Use of Submarines and Noxious Gases in Warfare", but France did not ratify it and so the treaty never entered into force. [1]---- Bancki ( talk) 15:29, 1 June 2021 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Washington Naval Conference article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | This article was nominated for merging with Washington Naval Treaty on September 2108. The result of the discussion was The September 2018 merge proposal was ignored so the 2009 unanimous oppose prevails.. |
I cannot find the discussion for the merge proposal with Washington Naval Treaty, in either of both articles. Hence, I'm registering my opinion in both:
Kind regards, DPdH ( talk) 08:01, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
This article is missing information regarding the terms placed upon Japan regarding ship construction:
- They may not build additional Battleships for 10 years. - Naval Tonnage between Japan and the US/Britain would not exceed an agreed upon ration (3/5 I believe)
There is also no mention of the Italian or French participation in the Treaty. Source: History 12 Student Workbook by Jerry Falk, Hazelmere Publishing. Can anyone with a more complete source of data fill in a few lines on this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.48.58.148 ( talk) 03:03, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
The main feat of that conference was the US dictat to Britannia to no longer rule the waves, but to be content with a naval power never greater than that of the USA. This conference marks a decisive turning point in international power relations. No longer did Britannian rule the waves, except on the Last Night of the Proms in Albert Hall, but the USA. To color this as a "disarmament conference" is ridiculous. -- L.Willms ( talk) 01:47, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
There is an aspect of the results of the Washington Naval Treaty that seems to be missed. The various European nations of the world had been at peace since the Napoleonic War and technology had had been developing a an increasingly rapid rate. Despite the considerable amount of theorising and deduction by warship designers it was difficult to predict successful design and some serious mistakes had been made.
The various naval actions of the Russo-Japanese war seem to show that a fleet action was likely rather than the WW1 real action mostly fought between small ships and against the U boats
When the warships were finally tested under real combat conditions in WW1 warship design received a very considerable input of design. The agreed warship conditions after the signing of the WNC gave naval architects,designers and armed forces generally time to evaluate a whole series of combat lessons and work the hard learned lessons and improvements into a new generation of large warships, mostly just in time for WW2. It was indeed a decidedly useful respite AT Kunene 123 ( talk) 11:47, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
The background states: "Women had just won the right to vote in many countries, and they helped convince politicians that money could be saved, votes won, and future wars avoided by stopping the arms race" ...and the reference for this is page 10 of Michael Turner's Britain and the World in the 20th Century. As far as I can see the quoted reference at that point does not actually connect either the conference or the wider disarmament movement of the early 1920s to the widening of female suffrage. Also, while some of the participant nations had enfranchised women in the immedate post WW1 period, others, notably France and Japan were yet to do so. If the statement is true can we find a better source? If not, ought it to be deleted? Blythtyneboi ( talk) 12:19, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
At the Washington Naval Conference, the five powers also agreed to a "Treaty relating to the Use of Submarines and Noxious Gases in Warfare", but France did not ratify it and so the treaty never entered into force. [1]---- Bancki ( talk) 15:29, 1 June 2021 (UTC)