Washington Conference 1921 1922 reasons. Washington Conference (1921-1922)
Ticket 4.
4.1. Washington Conference of 1921, its decisions
Washington Conference 1921 - 1922. - International Conference on the restriction of marine arms and the problems of the Far East and the Pacific Basin. He took place from November 12, 1921 to February 6, 1922 in Washington.
Participants: USA, United Kingdom, China, Japan, France, Italy, Belgium, Holland, Portugal, as well as British Dominions and India
Determine the number of marine arms
Secure new relationships in the Far East
"Treaty of four"
The inviolability of island possessions in the Pacific Pool
Cancellation of the Japanese-Chinese Treaty of 1902 on the section of the spheres of influence in the Pacific Ocean
Providing guarantees by the Pacific possession of Portugal and Holland
"Treaty of five"
Marine arms limit;
Ban on the creation of new marine databases;
Establishing a tonnow of linear ships and aircraft carriers for the USA, Great Britain, Japan, France and Italy in a ratio of 5: 5: 3: 1.75: 1.75;
A ban to build linkers with displacement over 35 thousand tons;
Cancellation of the United Kingdom's right to have a fleet equal to the Fleets of the two States following it;
Commitment not to build sea bases at a distance closer than 5 thousand km from Japan;
Limitation of cruisers tonnage;
US received the right to strengthen the islands that protected its territorial water
"Treaty of nine"
February 6, 1922 (USA, United Kingdom, France, Italy, Japan, Belgium, Portugal, Holland, China)
Ensuring guarantees of the territorial integrity of China, respect for its sovereignty;
The principles of "open doors" and "equal opportunities" were recognized, which has created a threat to China's challenge with great powers;
States refused to section China on the spheres of influence;
Japan refused to monopolized in China;
Japan returned China former German possessions.
Conclusions:
US reached the principle of "free seas":
Weave the Great Britain as a strong state;
Japan pushed in China;
Approved the principle of "equal opportunities" and "open doors".
2. Japan retained strong positions in the Far East.
In July 1921 President USA Warren Garding made an initiative to hold an international conference in Washington to restrict marine arms, Pacific and Far Eastern issues. The convening of the Washington Conference was due to the following major reasons. On the Parisian peace conference some Important problems of post-war settlement were either solved not Fully. or not affected at all. It was like once O. those problems that the American president called. In this senseWashington Conference was their roda Continue-RM conference Paris. She was designed to complete the formation process new system International relationship.
Particular attention to the Far Eastern problem was explained by the fact that after World War in the Asia-Pacific region there was a new alignment of the forces and aggravated the contradictions of the great powers. The United States, relying on its economic power, sought to secure a major situation in the Far East and primarily in China, using the "open door" policy and ^ equal opportunities. " This political course. Let with the reservations supported the United Kingdom. The main obstacle on the path of practical implementation of this course was Japan, which adhered to the traditionally imperialist principles of struggle per"Spheres of influence." Anticipating China "21 demand" and having achieved a diplomatic victory over the United States at the Paris Conference. Japan has made a major step in the implementation of its main foreign policy task - the transformation of Chinese territory, and then all of the Asia-Pacific region in the sphere of exclusively Japanese economic interests and political control. From here a sharp strengthening of the tension of the relationship between the United States and the country of the rising sun.
It should be noted that the international situation on FarEast differed in extreme complexity and contradictory. It can not be reduced only to the US-Japanese conflict In every case when solving far-grade problems are necessary It was considered three important circumstances.
First, in the power triangle USA-Japan-United Kingdom The last one occupied special a place. Stating his solidarity with American politics ^ Open Door, " she is At the same time was associated with Japan the Allied agreement concluded in 1902 and Renewed in 1911. this meant thatcase of armed clash with Japan UnitedStates will withstand Anglo-Japanese blockingly what japanese The government sought to preserve union with England, andamerican - to destroy it. Concerning UK,then, being in an ambiguous position, she became this Soyuz Practice. A business that treaty with Japan at the time of hissigning was directed against Germany and Russia, thereforeafter the defeat in the war of the first and weakening far Eastern Positions of the second he mop ") and capable of" protecting the interests of the United States from any threats ", in 1919. V. Wilson outlined the second three-year program, in which the construction of 69 large honeycomb courts was envisaged, which in the future guaranteed the United States with the "Trident Neptune". Strategic positions are connected to the civilians on the seas. Improved significantly after commissioning in July 1920, the Panaman Canal, which ensured the possibility of rapidly transferring American military flotilla from the Atlantic N Pacific Ocean and back.
The "Masters of the Seas" of the United Kingdom was not able to compete with America and this area due to blatant inequality in economic and financial moshi.Therefore, in 1920. The British government actually refused its famous "lvumorzhavny standard" and put forward a less pretentious requirement - the principle of equality of the British fleet of a fleet of the strongest of other marine powers ("Ope Ro \\ ie<*1ап(1ап»). По мнению английских правительственных и военных кругов, эта уступка компенсировалась сохранением за Великобританией контроля над основными морскими путями (Гибралтар. Суэцкий канал. Северное море). широкой сетью военно-морских баз. а также дружественными отношениями с Соединенными Штатами. К тому же она вовсе не означала, что Англия прекращала наращивание своего военно-морского потенциала.
However, the American challenge was adopted by another power - Japan- In 1920, she began the implementation of a giant at the time of the program "8-8", which had the facilitation 8 battleships 8 cruisers and a large number of vessels to ensure.
However, an unprecedented racing marine armsdemanded huge costs that could lead to financialovervoltage and cause a negative response from the public. It should also be considered widespread pacifist sentiment. therefore in governments allied powers I. began to develop plans for the restriction of naval forces.establishing certain proportions of fleets, consideredmilitary political objectives of this country. Franking othersthe leaders on this expense spoke by the American president W. Garding: "Most Wise policy of the United States should become a striving achieve excellence by sea As a result arms Reduction.
It is far out of the fact that the idea of \u200b\u200bconvening a conference embeddedfrom the United Stalls. With the coming to power of the Republican administration, W. Garding in the US foreign policy there were significant changes. In the change of Wilsonovskochi\u003e Liberal globalism came neo-insulating. That is, a policy aimed at providing American regional and global interests while maintaining "full-freedom of the hands". As part of this policy, not European, and the Latin American and Far Eastern destinations played a paramount role, and the Latin American and Far Eastern destinations, which. In turn, he intended to strengthen the military power of the United States . From here, a nomination of 3 specific goals that American diplomacy should have been implemented at the Washington Conference: 1) Prevent violations of the status quo in the pool of the Pacific Ocean, and if possible, change it in its favor: 2) through the reduction of marine arms to achieve if not dominant, That is equal to England on the seas; 3) to achieve international recognition of "open doors" and thereby approve the dominant positions of the United States in China.
Administration USA did not hide that exercise thesegoals will allow her to take revenge for the "defeat" V. Wilson at the Parisian peace conference. In other words. The United States has raised the question of a partial revision of the Versailles system of contracts with that. to achieve the satisfaction of the series self Claims that were rejected in 1919. in Paris.
The preparation of the conference was accompanied by a noisy propaganda campaign, in progress Which was glorified by the peacefulness of the American administration, the international forum itself was called the "meeting of friends", and the idea of \u200b\u200breducing marine arms is the "great self-sacrifice of America". Everything Newspapers quoted Words W. Garding: "We hope to establish the best order that will return peace of mind." 1921 pacifist slogans were surprisingly reminded by those who were uttered. on the eve of Parisian conference. And just as then, they have little corresponded to the real foreign policy objectives and the goals of the great powers.
The solemn discovery of the Washington Conference was held on November 11, 1921 - in the third anniversary of the signing of the compi air truce. 14 countries took part in it; 5 Great Powers - USA. England. France, Italy, Japan; 4 states. having significant interests in the Asia-Pacific Ocean region - Holland, Belgium, Portugal and China; as well as 5 British dominions. Soviet Russia informal motivation - "Due to the lack of a single government," the invitation did not receive, like the Far Eastern Republic, but without any explanation. In this regard, the Government of the RSFSR and DVR synchronously stated that they do not recognize any conference decisions, By Analogies with Versaille All significant questions discussedat the closed meetings of the "Big Five", and at open plenary meetings were officially approved already ready Decisions. Chairman of the American delegation Secretary of State Charles was elected chairman of the conference. Evans KhyozThe pppet of the day included three main "survey: about mutualguarantees of inviolability island territories in a quietocean; on restriction of marine arms; About position on theFar East and recognition of territorial integrity I.independence of China.
On the Washington Conference were Accepted nextbasic documents.
- "Treaty of four powers"
This contract was concluded on December 13, 1921 by representatives of the United States, England. France and Japan. It consisted of only four articles and is known in the history of international relations as
Four Pacific Treatise ", or" Far Eastern Anntan ". The content of the contract is almost completely revealed in its official name - "On the joint protection of the rights of the Contracting Parties to island possessions and island territories in the Pacific Pool." In other words, the agreement legally secured the status quo and temporary equilibrium of four powers in the Asia-Pacific region.
Special The value of Article 4th contract that installed that after its ratification automatically loses poweranglo-Japanese Union Agreement 1911 It was largediplomatic victory United States achieved indifficult confrontation with England and Japan. In the course of shednegotiations the American delegation chose as the "the weakest link" the United Kingdom, knowing about its dual attitude to Union Treaty. For it is americans used Various pressure tools: from a blatant promise to provide major loans to a corrupt threat recognizeIrish Republic. England after short resistancelitished by American onslaught. Head of the English delegation membercabinet of Ministers A. Balfour explained intelligently japanese leader The delegation of the sea minister baron T. Kato. whatJapan even won from such a decision for Now instead of
South Ally received three at once. Kato answered B. that sense.what quantity (allies) does not replace the quality (contracts!as by agreement of 1911 and the case of an attack on Japan She. Successful "Immediate Military Help", and under contract 1921 - only exchange opinions. " Japanese minister failed outcome English diplomats; * You arranged brilliant funeral union. " Whatever it was. The signing of "Pact Four" marked the first, but not The last success of the United States at the Washington Conference.
"Treaty of five powers"
the great powers concluded an agreement on the restriction of marine arms.
The initiative in the development and acceptance of this document belonged to the United States. In his speech, US Secretary of State Ch. Hughes outlined the American plan. Highlighting its main components. It was primarily proposed to reduce the number of linear ships that determined the power of the navy (the largest military vessels with displacement above 10 thousand, tons and had tools that had tools were more than 10 thousand). The reduction was to be carried out by eliminating ships in the construction stage, as well as the conclusion of their construction of ships already stood in service. The implementation of the US project would lead to the following quantitative changes in linear fleets: England retained from 32 battleships 20, the United States increased the number of linear vessels from 16 to 18 (with refusal to build another 11 ships), Japan has remained the same amount - 10 battleships (when planning increasing to 1 ^). Similar proposals concerned other classes of ships. Secondly, it was envisaged to establish the "ceilings" of the limit tonnage and its relation for the five great nautical powers. In accordance with this provision in the future, the replacement of obsolete on new linear ships was carried out in such a way that the total tonnage would not exceed 500 thousand tons for the United States and England, and for Japan - 300 thousand tons, i.e. the ratio of linear fleets of three The powers were established in the proportion of 5: 5: 3. Thirdly, the construction of battleships with displacement of more than 35 thousand tons were prohibited, which, oddly enough, strictly corresponded bandwidth Panama Canal
In his opening speech, Ch. Hughes has a lot and felt about the disasters of world war, about the desire of peoples to the world. The need to reduce the costs of weapons to turn them on the restoration of the destroyed farm. As noted by the press, in 35 minutes spent on the speech, the Secretary of State USA Skilled more ships than all the famous admirals of past centuries. The speech received enthusiastic advertising: American proposals called the "unprecedented victim of paffism", "the practical embodiment of the centuries-old dream of humanity about the world and disarmament." For all these loud phrases, the true purpose of American diplomacy was reached on the background - to reach naval parity with the UK and strengthen the US strategic position as the Great Sea Power.
Discussion of the American project passed in fierce The struggle between "friends and allies." The results of thisthe struggle were as follows.
Negotiations on the reduction of linear fleets and aircraft carriers.if you do not count some changes in the details, ended for the USA successfully. England called above reasons wenttowards American proposals that predeterminedgeneral consent.
The desire of the United States to extend the principles developed and relationships to all other categories of the surface fleet met the decisive resistance of the UK. The thing is. That cruisers, destroyers and other high-speed warships were extremely necessary for effective communication with the parts of the British Empire scattered around the world. The intransigence of the position of the British delegation did not allow to solve this issue positively.
The same fate gave birth to the Anglo-American project to reduce the underwater fleet. In the role of his main opponents, France and Italy performed. An entertaining dialogue occurred between the British and the French. A. Balfur announced the need to eliminate all submarines, calling them the most barbaric view of the naval forces and reminding the delegates about the ruthless underwater war, which Germany led against the Allied powers. In the removal "1 Deputy Head of the French delegation A. Sarro (the official leader was the Prime Minister A. Brian's Prime Minister) determined as" meaningless "attempts to oppose some categories of navy others. Then he assured those present at the meeting. France is ready to destroy all its submarines if the UK does the same with his linkers. In conclusion, Sarrotically noticed: "True, we are told that England never uses its linear ships and military purposes. Well, of course. She holds them . Apparently, for catching Sardin. So let it resolve France to have pyalny boats, well. Let's say, the Botanical Studies of the Marine Lana ". As a result of this discussion, the underwater fleet remained inviolable.
what concerns the problem of "disarmament on land "then It was only formally affected in a number of speeches, but no one seriously her Did not consider. As showful character was discussion Aviation Reduction Question.
The content of the "Night Powered Treaty" can be reduced to the following basic provisions. 1) the ratio of linear fleets of England, USA, Japan. France and Italy installed in the proportion of 5: 5: 3: 1.75: 1.75, the total tonnage of battleships was 525-525-315-175-175 thousand tons, respectively, the limiting tonnage for aircraft carriers of five sea powers Determined in size: 135-135-81-61-61 thousand tons 3) Displacement of one linear ship should not exceed 35 thousand tons 4) Article 19 banned the construction of new and strengthening of old naval databases in Central and Western Parts of the Pacific Ocean (East 110th Meridian). The United States and England could not have any naval databases at a distance less than 5 thousand km from Japaneseislands. This ruling was a major strategic winning for Japan.
"Treaty five powers "became an important element of the post-war system of international relationship Although unequivocally hisit is extremely difficult to characterize.
First, the value of this document went out for the regional framework, since he limited not the Pacific, but the world fleet of the great powers. The contract not only suspended a dangerous trend towards an unlimited marine arms race, is heestablished the limit norms of tonnage the largest sea ships, which assumed a very significant (about two times) a reduction in the already built or built linear fleet. And this. Of course, it should be assessed positively.
Secondly, the agreement of the five powers was issued such a global naval equilibrium, which, albeit in varying degrees, but corresponded to the interests of all its participants. The United States won another diplomatic victory, having achieved naval parity with the United Kingdom, while strengthened its position on the seas as much as possible and retaining the strategic importance to the Panaman Canal. England, refusing 01 ^ Standard of the two powers, "which turned to her in an unbearable burden, kept leadership in the surface fleet in the class of high-speed vessels, which, in combination with a wide network of Jew and sea databases, provided its advantages as the strongest sea power, Japan, insulating Including in the agreement on the restriction of the military presence of the United States and England in the Pacific Zone, has changed the ratio of forces in the ZG region in its favor. In addition, the lag from the Anglo-Saxon powers in the number of linear ships and aircraft carriers to a certain extent was compensated for the beneficial geographical position of Japanese islands:
if American naval interests extend to two oceans, and English to the whole world, then Japan could concentrate its military fleet in one strategically important area. France and Italy with their more modest marine possibilities received effective guarantees of their safety, leaving outside restrictions and abbreviations of land forces and underwater fleet. what they did not give way, and on thesome sites and exceeded the leading naval powers of the world.
Third, the contract "Big Five" could not become effective disarmament means so how he contained the program not complete, and a partial reduction of arms In alldirections, not affected and text of the agreement, the great powers continued to increase their military power. "^ then not crossed the achieved, but noticeably relaxed its significance.
"Treaty of nine powers"
Participants of this contract, signed on February 6, 1922, became all countries that sent their representatives to Washington. With the exception of English dominion. The basis of the agreement was an American project, supported by the delegations of England and China. Its content was like that. Article 1 of the 1st contract, the parties pledged to respect the sovereignt. Independence, "Territorial integrity and inviolability" of the Republic of China. Article 3-I argued the principle of "open doors" and "equal opportunities" for the trade and industrial activities of "all nations throughout the Chinese territory". At the same time, the states concluded a contract. "To refrain from obtaining special rights and advantages in KIT". In accordance with the adopted orders, Japan was forced to prison from some of its privileges; the exceptional right to provide the Chinese government loans to build the goal of the railway in Manchuria. Direct our advisers to the northeastern China and Dr. under pressure from the United States and England Chapter Japanese delegation T. KagoOn February 4, 1922, a special agreement was signed with representatives of the Beijing government, according to which Japan pledged to withdraw his troops from the province of Shan Dong and return to China Qingdao-Shinan's railway and Jiaozhou territory.
In a certain sense, the "Treaty of Nine Power" was a rapid event in the development of international relations in the Far East.
First, the doctrine of "open doors" and "equal opportunities", proclaimed back in 1899, first received international recognition that was the undoubted success of American foreign policy. At the signing ceremony, Chiuz stated: "We believe that we thank this contract" open doors "in China have finally become a reality." "Equal opportunities" in inequality in economic mosses provided to the United States significant advantages In the struggle for China. Secondly, the treaty that rejected the policies of the "spheres of influence" had a pronounced AntsAponian orientation and weakened the Far Eastern position of Japan. On the one hand, this testified that. That the United States, giving way to Japan on the issue of naval bases, when solving the Chinese problem, they took revenge and improved their positions at the expense of Japanese. On the other hand, a similar outcome of the negotiations could not satisfy Japan and inevitably it was to lead to a new exacerbation of American-Japanese contradictions, thirdly, the agreement of nine powers with all its democratic formulations was contradictory and inconsistent. It eliminated only some of the numerous restrictions of Chinese sovereignty. Suggestions of China on the complete abolition of the rights of exterritoria of foreign citizens. "21 Requirements", the return of all leased territories was not satisfied. England, which announced the transfer of the Republic of Way-Haywei. Preserved the peninsula Julun and Hong Kong. Japan rejected China's demand for the withdrawal of Japanese troops ofSouthern Manchuria and refused to discuss the issue of belonging to Port Arthur and Dyrena. Fourth, despite the duality in the approach to the Chinese issue, agreement 1922. It should be recognized as a large positive step in its solution - in comparison with the imperialist methods of semi-colonial exploitation of China, so characteristic of the preceding policies of the great powers.
In the course Discussion of "Treaty of Nine powered " on the Washington The conferences, as well as at the Paris conference, there was a Russian question, while maintaining a common anti-Soviet attitude, certain changes occurred in the policies of the Allied Power. what is not in The latter was connected with the end of the civil war in Russia. In this context, two episodes became extremely accurate. The United States spoke with the idea of \u200b\u200b"internationalization" of the Chinese-Eastern Railway. Followed by the protest of the Soviet governments;!, Which stated that the problem Krodthis is the subject of bilateral negotiations between China and the RSFSR. Not a conference passing without the participation of the Russian republic. Very symptomatic was the allied response. Special technical subcommittee presented a report. in which it was noted that "the road is indeed the property of the Russian government." In the resolution of the Washington Conference, confirming the powers of the Inter-Union Committee on the Office of the CAW. The main goal of his activity was announced "Return of the Railway of Russia as a legal owner." A similar revuranta from the side of Soviet Russia was largely due to the fact. What is the anthit powers and, above all, the United States began to perceive it as an element of the global balance of power and as a possible counterbalance of Japan.
This was also indicated by such facts as receiving Chiju delegation of the Russian Federation. A number of applications of official American and British representatives about the need to extend the Japanese troops from the Far East, etc.
Demonstrating their desire if not respect, then in every case consider "legitimate interests" Soviet Russia.union powers by The creature was recognized her de facto.
How can I appreciate the main the results of Washington's workforum?
The convocation and decisions of the conference became the first major diplomatic victory of the United States after the end of the World War. They managed to significantly strengthen their role and solving a number of major international problems and in some measuretake revenge for failures in Paris. In this sense, the Washington Conference, being a continuation of Versailles, simultaneously appeared and its partial revision.
The conference in Washington legally issued a new-rustic forces "in the Asia-Pacific region. A consensus has been reached against naval balance, mutual guarantees of regional interests and the general principles of Far Eastern Policy.
However, the Washington system is not it was universal.Conference Resolutions were temporary and compromised, and many questions never found their ownpermissions. Contradictions between great powers were smoothed, But not eliminated.
Completion of the Washington Conference banned by itself the beginning of functioning Versailles-Washingtoninternational relations.
Versailles-Washington International Relationship System: Content and Character
The above analysis of the main decrees of the Parisian and Washington Conference allows you to make the following general conclusions on the content and nature of the Versailles-Washington system.
First. This system appeared international legal execution of the results of the First World War and established after its end of the new arrangement Forces. Her The creation completed the transition process from the war to the world and contributed to the temporary stabilization of international relations,
Second. Versailles-Washington system it was extremely complex and controversial. IN It was combined as democratic, fair ^ so I. conservative, imperialist Principles of peaceful settlement.
The first were due to cardinal changes in the post-war world: the rise of the revolutionary and national liberation movement, the emergence of the Bolshevik threat, the wide distribution of pacifist sentiment. As well as the desire of a number of leaders of the leaders-win-winning to give a new world order of liberal, more civilized appearance. These principles, such decisions were based as legal recognition of nine newly formed states with Central and Eastern Europe;
institution of the League of Nations; The proclamation of independence and territorial integrity of China: restriction and reduction of marine arms and others. The essential disadvantage of many of these decisions was their declarativeness, not reinforced by real guarantees. However, even in this form they had an important positive value, becoming an internationally recognized basis for the struggle for the implementation of democratic goals and declarations. Not should also forget that liberal principles first introduced into theory I. The practice of interstate relations.
At the same time, a conservative trend was playing a decisive role in the formation of the post-war international system. ETS has reflected in solving such issues as development;
and the conclusion of peace agreements with Germany and its allies determination of the main directions anti-Soviet policiesredistribution of colonies, etc.
Explicit The prevalence of traditionally conservative principles pon Above democratic explained a number of reasons
First, in the Versailles-Washington system, the results of a not fair war were legally enshrined, and the war * imperialist on both sides. " Secondly, this system reflected not just a new alignment of forces. but domination Powering winners over defeated states. From heredigging and largely robbed the nature of the contracts developed in the versal. Third, determining the factor of the new redistribution of the world. As before, it became not a desire for justice and ^ national self-determination of peoples ", and the geopolitical and strategic interests of the world's leading powers. Fourth, liberal appeals and slogans are not couldhide the fact that as the main means of resolving international relations remained s.Yuva method, What was most pronounced in the ultimativity of the requirements for Germany and the organization of armed intervention against Soviet Russia. Fifth, the conservative imperialist nature of the post-war international system clearly manifested itself in preservation of colonial empires The division of the world on a small number of metropolis countries (there were only YU "and a huge area of \u200b\u200bcolonial possessions and submanent territories (44.7% of the earthly land and 31.5% of the world's population).
Thus, the new model of international relationshipdistinguished from old famous liberalism, in its content and nature was preferably conservative and in this sense, although with a different alignment of forces. was -the co-welter of the former international systems
Third. Despite the achieved mutual understanding betweenthe winners of the winners in the settlement major world Problems, despite their attempts to create a balanced international order. Versailles-Washing house by the would be nonequilibrium and unstable.
In theoretical terms, any system of international relations cannot be durable, since the basis of its basis the balance of forces is constantly changing, which in the end leads to the destruction of the outdated international system and the formation of a new corresponding historical realities. The stability of this international model depends on that. in what degree werethe interests of its participants are taken into account, as controversial issues were settled, to what extent were the existing and possiblecontradictions in interstate relations
In this context Versailles-Washington the system was not initially durable and stable, since it is not sh; not only eliminated traditional, but also contributed to appearance new international conflicts. You can highlight five major groups of contradiction, . Character for internationalinterior situations
The main thing the confrontation of the diva-winner, and defeated states. Therefore, the German issue took the central place in international life. The desire for Revenge, who determined the foreign policy of Germany, was caused by the humiliating nature of the Versailles, the authors of which were the powers of the Entente and the United States. Essentially, this policy was aimed at the revision of Versailles-Washington, the treaty system, and therefore against its creators. The conflict between Germany and the Allied powers was the main, most important contradiction of post-war times, since in the future it could pour into the struggle for the new redistribution of the world. Despite the complexity of the development of international relations in the 1920-1930s. This is the contradiction in the end led to the Second World War.
Another group was made up contradictions between the winners themselves: England and France. USA and England, Japan and USA, Italy and the Anglo-French Entente.
, Canada, India, New Zealand, South Africa-Sky Union - as well USA, Japan, France, China, Italy Belgium Netherlands and Portugal. The focus of participants V. K. was the situation in the Pacific. It was on this forum that the United States was expected to take a diplomatic revenge for a cool reception provided by Europeans to the foreign policy initiatives of Americans who claimed world leadership, at least moral, during the Paris and subsequent multilateral meetings. In addition, the issues discussed on the shores of Potomak, in contrast to European problems, directly affected the interests of the United States. The place of isolationism, which manifested in the refusal of the Congress to ratify Versailles and other post-war treaties, was supposed to take healthy pragmatism in the spirit of real politics in the Far East. The victory in the 1920 Republican President-Republican U. Garding, who, unlike the Democrat, Vilson, considered Eastern Asia as a promising zone of American interests, who came across the shores of the Pacific Ocean with growing "appetites" of the Japanese, , In turn, supported allied relations with the British (Anglo-Japanese Union 1902). The general uncertainty of the post-war situation in this extensive region was complicated by the marine arms race leading powers.
Thus, the main items of the agenda of the Washington Conference of the Conference were, firstly, the approval of territorial changes in the Pacific Basin and the definition of the status of former German Island territories, secondly, the restrictions of marine arms and, thirdly, discussion of the situation in China, whose representatives In 1919 refused to sign in ersalsky treaty In connection with the transfer of Japan, Jiaozhou region on Shandong P-Ove, until August 1914 under control Hermann Empire. Despite the fact that this forum passed away from Europe, among the participating countries again did not turn out to be Soviet Russia and Germany, from the invitation of which they chose to refrain his organizers. At the same time delegation Far Eastern Republic (DVR), a buffer democratic state located between the RSFSR and Japan, arrived in the capital of the United States unofficially as observers. China was represented only by the Beijing Government, while the Government Sun Yatsen In Guangzhou, did not receive recognition of the powers.
The first international legal act, signed on December 13, 1921, was a treaty of four Der-Zhav (USA, Japan, Great Britain and France) on mutual political guarantees of the inviolability of their island possessions in the Pacific Ocean with a period of 10 years. In fact, this document is blocked, the Anglo-Japanese principle of maintaining the status quo was replaced by the similarity of the collective regional security system. The contract of four powers was the key element of the entire Washington system. Experts regarded him as success primarily American diplomacy, who managed to eliminate the special relations of Great Britain and Japan in the Far East and strengthen the prestige of the United States as a new Great Pacific Power.
The second significant international agreement concluded is now five states (the above-mentioned countries were added Italy) February 6, 1922, the military-technical parameters were determined by the ratio of their forces on the sea, the problem of the restriction of land and air armies was excluded from the initial agenda forum. V. K. K. Agreed with the proposal of the American delegation to establish the principle of proportional balance of the tonnage of linear combat vessels according to formula 5: 5: 3: 1.75: 1.75, respectively, for the USA, Great Britain, Japan, France and Italy. The signators also agreed on the prohibition of the construction of new battleships with displacement over 35 thousand tons. The term of the contract of the five statement was established before January 1, 1937. Its signing was most beneficial to the United Kingdom and the United States: the first sought to reduce the enormous costs of maintaining the world's largest fleet, and the second pursued the goal to reassure the American public covered with insulatory and pacifist sentiment. At the same time, Tokyo managed to learn from the contract with strategic benefits, achieving the prohibition of the construction of new naval databases in the Pacific Basin is no longer closer to 5-6 thousand km from Japanese OG.
An active role in V. K. The delegation of China was trying to play, speaking with a claim for recognition by the international community behind him the status of the Great Power. Therefore, the program of Chinese representatives contained points about the abolition of the regime of unequal agreements and surrenders imposed on the country in the second half of the XIX - early XX century. European states, USA, Japan and Russia. As a result of complex many hours of negotiations, on February 6, 1922, nine conference participants signed an agreement, and in fact - a declaration of respect for the sovereignty, territorial integrity and administrative integrity of China. From an economic point of view, this meant the distribution of the principle of "open doors" on the entire territory of the country, which excluded the creation of any closed areas of interest and the influence of individual powers - the undoubted victory of US diplomacy. Thus, the Treaty of Nine Power has completed the process of incorporating the traditional Chinese civilization into the global political and economic system. However, to achieve equal to other participants in V. K. (with the exception of British dominions), Beijing's international legal status was still failed. Participants V. K. There were also two resolutions that had a direct relation to Soviet Russia: about the withdrawal of Japan's troops from the territory of the DVR and the return of property Sino-Eastern Railway (CER)captured by Chinese troops in Russia.
The decisions taken on V. K. 1921-1922 marked the end of the post-war restructuring of international relations. Decisions V. K. laid the foundation of the post-war world order in the Pacific Pool, although they could not resolve both old and new contradictions between leading states: Great Britain, USA, China, Japan and Russia.
Lit.: Gorokhov V.N. The history of international relations. 1918-1939. M., 2004; Zhigalov B. S. Far Eastern Policy of England in 1917-1922. Tomsk, 1981; Sidorov A. Yu., Kleimenova N. E. History of international relations. 1918-1939. M., 2006. E. Yu. Sergeev.
The 1st world caused a serious blow to a variety of countries - losses were very large, the restoration of the population went slowly, stretched relations were preserved between yesterday's enemies. Especially the sharp were contradictions between the four leading countries of the world - France, the USA, England and Japan. The reason for these contradictions was the Section and Forces of the Marine Fleet.
Relations between these countries were increasingly stronger, everything was clearly felt that for several years - and the new war would become inevitable. Then it was decided to convene a conference on which all contradictions will be stipulated and opponent countries will be able to come to a mutually beneficial solution, which will prevent conflict.
The place was chosen by the USA, and in their capital, and the Washington Conference of 1921 was convened.
The following should be noted: the Washington Conference convened precisely on the initiative of the United States - they expected to make the conclusion of contracts favorable for themselves. Officially, the main purpose of the conference was to stop the movement of the peoples of the Soviet Union and the dependent countries. What is noteworthy, the Government of the Soviet Union was not invited to the conference, and when the delegation was sent to Washington, she was denied to admit to the conference.
From November 1921 to February 1922, the Washington Conference was held, and its decisions were very important for the whole world. The three contracts were especially significant: "Treaty of Four", "Treaty of Nine" and "Five Treaty".
The Washington Conference signed the "contract of four" on December 13 of the 21st year. In this contract, how can be understood from the name, four powers participated: USA, France, England and Japan. The essence of this contract is the consent of all four countries to jointly defend the agreed territorial rights to the Pacific Ocean. In addition, the "Treaty of Four" stipulated the gap of the Anglo-Japanese Union, which was dusing since 1902. Torn this union was due to tangible pressure from the United States, as the Union of England and Japan was directed against some US plans.
"Agreement of the Five" Washington Conference accepted immediately before its conclusion - 1922. This contract also has the second name - the Washington Maritime Agreement. The following powers participated in it: France, USA, Japan, United Kingdom and Italy. This agreement stipulated the need to limit the naval armed forces of all countries participating in it. According to the maritime agreement, the advantage of the forces of the sea fleet was received.
In addition to the United States, Japan and United Kingdom provided themselves to some advantages through this treaty. So, Great Britain and the United States were given Japan obligations not to build bases in the Pacific Ocean Eastern 110 Meridian Eastern Longitude. And the United Kingdom retained its actual advantage due to the fact that the tonnage of the navy was not limited.
"Treaty of Nine" Washington Conference accepted simultaneously with the "contract of five". The following countries participated in this contract: France, Belgium, USA, Great Britain, Japan, Netherlands, Italy, Portugal and China. According to this Agreement, all countries participating in it received equal opportunities, and China became a country that everything could use (and not just Japan, as was intended earlier). Japan pledged to refuse to present China "twenty-one requirements".
Only now China's rights have been somewhat increasing: not all Japanese troops were brought out of it, and the China itself was imposed on a special customs tariff, strengthening it (China) inequality.
The US government has built plans for the seizure of the best positions at the CAW, but, thanks to the resistance of China and the offended Soviet Union disadvantaged in their rights, these implementations failed.
The proposed book discusses events related to two opposite trends in the international policy of the 1920s and 1930s.
The essence is the first in the fact that after the Great War of 1914? 1918. Governments of the Entente countries seriously dreamed of the great world. Coming out winners from a monstrous slaughter, disarming their former opponents, they believed that they could continue to solve disputes among themselves through negotiations. Therefore, they created a league of nations, went to serious quantitative and qualitative limitations of their land, air-air and naval forces.
The essence of the second trend was reduced to the fact that, contrary to the good intentions of the leadership of the great powers, for twenty years in the world over thirty military conflicts and local wars. The building of international world order persistently fell from different sides. In the end, the fire broke out a fire of a new world slaughter, even more large-scale and cruel than the first.
Both of these trends are discussed in detail in this book on the facts of facts related to the development and application of naval fleets of great and secondary marine powers.
Sections of this page:
July 10, 1921 US Secretary of State (i.e. Foreign Minister) Charles Evans Hughes offered to convene the conference of nine states. First, countries that have access to the Pacific Ocean - USA, Japan and China were to participate in it. Secondly, countries possessed by the colonies in this region are United Kingdom, France, the Netherlands, Portugal (plus the United States and Japan). Third, countries that had concessions in China are Belgium and Italy (Plus United States, United Kingdom, Japan, France).
Soviet Russia did not receive an invitation on the grounds that it has lost its way to the Pacific Ocean in connection with the formation of the so-called Far Eastern Republic - DVR. However, representatives of the DVR, who arrived in Washington, were also not allowed to participate in the conference in connection with the fact that the Government of the Russian Federation is a puppet, entirely dependent on Moscow. In response, the Government of the RSFSR said the US Protest, Great Britain, Japan, France and China, emphasizing that it will not be obligatory for himself any decision taken at the conference.
The conference was supposed to discuss two main issues: restriction of marine arms and settlement of the situation in the Far East. After the preliminary negotiation stage, she began its meetings on November 12, 1921 in Washington, chaired by Ch.E. Hughes.
As a result of the conference, three contracts were signed, which became the victory of American diplomacy. The United States managed to slow down the Japanese expansion in the pool of the Pacific Ocean and in China, as well as to establish the principle of parity with the UK fleet, without resorting to an expensive arms race.
The first of these treaties (the contract of four states) was signed on December 13, 1921, United Kingdom, Japan and France for a period of 10 years. The parties have pledged to comply with the rights of each of the State party's member states and guaranteed the safety of their possessions on the Pacific Islands (that is, they divided the spheres of influence). After its ratification, the Anglo-Japanese agreement was lost from 1902 (extended in 1911), stipulating the interests of both countries in this region, which facilitated American economic expansion in the Far East.
The Second Treaty (Nine State Treaty) February 6, 1922 was signed by representatives of the United States, Great Britain, Japan, France, Italy, the Netherlands, Belgium, China and Portugal. He concerned the policies of these states towards China. The treaties pledged to respect the sovereignty, independence and administrative-territorial integrity of China. As a result of Japan, I had to return to China Chandin Peninsula, captured by her in 1914-1915. Together with the Hermann Naval Base Qingdao. Return occurred until the end of 1922. At the same time, the contract obliged China to continue to pursue open doors, "which was on hand primarily by Americans.
***
The third contract concerned naval arms. Here the source position of the United States was quite clear. Naval fleets of Austria-Hungary and Turkey managed to liquidate, and the German and Russian (Soviet) fleets declined to a secure minimum. It remains to agree only the rest of the five "Great Maritime Powers".
This contract, also known as the "contract of five states" (USA, Great Britain, Japan, France, Italy) - was adopted after a long period of disputes. US Secretary of State Hughes said that, negotiating disarmament, it should be adopted for the starting point already the existing potential of the fleems of the great marine powers. In this case, the comparison of these potentials should be made according to the total displacement of battleships and linear cruisers, i.e. the so-called "Capital Ships". The tonnage of the rest of the combat units should be summed and recalculated on the number of conditional battleships or linear cruisers of appropriate displacement.
The most important point of the plan for the restriction of weapons proposed by Hughes was the proclamation of a kind of "vacation in the construction of the battleship" for a period of at least 10 years.
The United States, implemented by the plan of 1916, had 10 battlements at that time and 6 linear cruisers in different stages of construction. Moreover, one battleship was almost completely built, the readiness of another 2 was 80%, and the remaining 7 battleships were in the races.
According to Hughes's proposal, all 9 unfinished battleships and 6 linear cruisers should be sent on the layer, which gave a total of 15 ships with a total displacement of 618.000 tons (tonnage of ships specified by Hughes, was different from real within 6? 7%). In addition, he proposed to disassemble the metal of 15 old American battleships, with the exception of DELAWARE and South Dacota, which was added another 15 ships with a total displacement of 227.000 tons, and only 30 ships and 845.700 tons.
The UK was asked to abandon the construction of 4 linear cruisers on the 1921 project (172.000 tons), to pass on all the battleship battlements on the layer, as well as the dreadnights built to the King George V ships series - it was 19 units. Total 23 ship shared displacement 583.375 tons.
Japan offered to abandon the planned construction of 8 batches and linear cruisers, disassemble 3 lincard - Mutsu (ready for 95%), "Tosa" and "Kaga" (lowered for water), as well as 4 linear cruisers - "Amagi" and " Akagi "(lowered for water)," Atago "and" Takao "(in the races). In total, the Japanese were asked to send in a layer of 7 unfinished ships with a total displacement of 289.100 tons. In addition, they should be destroyed all dodredutients - 10 units (159.828 tons). And in just a layer, 17 ships were to share with a total displacement of 448.928 tons.
Thus, the three great maritime powers refused 70 large warships with a total displacement of 1.878,000 tons. The struck of such a "pogrom", the London newspaper "Times" correspondent wrote in his report: "Secretary of State Hughes across 35 minutes sink more linear ships than all the admirals of the world for centuries"!
Three months after signing the contract, the number of those who remained in the rank of ships of this class would be as follows: 1) USA - 18 linkers, 500.650 English tons; 2) United Kingdom - 18 battleships and 4 linear cruisers, 604.450 tons; 3) Japan is 6 linkers and 4 linear cruisers, 299.700 tons.
At the same time, Hughes proposed to establish the maximum allowable total tonnage of battleships for the United States and the UK at 500,000 tons, for Japan - 300,000 tons, for France and Italy - at 175,000 tons.
We must explain where these numbers come from. According to the provisions adopted at the conference, each fleet should have been folded from two groups of ships: linear and lungs, while the relationship between groups was determined as 1: 1.
The total tonnage of the British fleet was established on the basis of mathematical equality of the total tonnage of fleets of the three largest European states for 1921: France (575.000 tons), Italy (345.000 tons) and Germany (108,000 tons) - only 1.028.000 tons, after rounding 1 000.000 tons.
The same tonnage limit was envisaged for the American fleet. Given the proportion between groups inside the fleets - 1: 1, we get 500,000 tons of battleships for each of both Anglo-Saxon countries. Similarly, indicators for French and Italian fleets were calculated. Of the mathematical equality mentioned above, there should be a tonnage of each of them should not exceed 1/3 tonsuna of the British fleet, i.e. 333.333 tons for each country, after rounding - 350,000 tons, from which the share of battleships accounted for 175.000 tons.
As for Japan, its tonnage was determined as follows: at the end of 1921, the displacement of the American fleet was 2.052.000 tons (counting together ships in the building and in the construction), and Japanese - 1.042.042 tons, i.e. about 50% US fleet tonnage. This proportion was decided to save, from here a figure of 500.000 tons for the imperial fleet. The Japanese managed to overtake another 10% of the American tonnage - in the amount of 600,000 tons, from them for battleships - 300,000 tons.
Thus, the proportions of the tonnage of battleships for 5 states were supposed to be 5: 5: 3: 1.75: 1.75. It was also proposed that the standard displacement of new battleships does not exceed 35,000 tons, and the caliber of the guns is 406 mm.
At the same time, the Americans took as the basis of the characteristics of their newest battleships like "Colorado", standard water displacement 32.500 tons, the largest width is 30 meters, the sediment is 9.5 meters, the armament is 8 guns of a 406 mm caliber, the diving range is 10,000 miles on 10 nodes. Meanwhile, the width of the Panaman channel gateways was then 35 meters. In other words, larger battleships through this channel could not pass.
The second group of warships was divided into three categories: light surface units (cruisers and destroyers), submarines, aviance ships (aircraft carriers and hydroaviances).
For the three states introduced limits in this group. Lightweight surfaces of the United States and the United Kingdom - at 450.000 tons, Japan - 270,000 tons; Submarines of the United States and Great Britain - 90.000 tons, Japan - 54,000 tons; Avianecoming ships of the United States and the United Kingdom - 80,000 tons, Japan - 48.000 tons.
It was also proposed to complete the ships of this group, which were in the construction stage. And tonnage exceeding installed limitsIt was proposed to put on the layer only after the complete replacement of outdated ships. The service life was established as: for battleships and aviance ships - 20 years; For cruisers - 17 years old, for destroyers and submarines - 12 years.
In relation to all other combat units with displacement of less than 3.000 tons, at a speed of up to 15 nodes armed with a caliber to 127 mm, no limitations were provided.
The member countries of the Treaty were to provide all interested parties with comprehensive information on the timing of the replacement of ships and tactical and technical data of the new units under construction. It was envisaged that large combat ships cannot be discussed to be debited to third countries and that such ships for third countries cannot be built on the shipyards of the participating countries.
***
November 15 began a discussion on American proposals. At the same time, a significant discrepancy between opinions was revealed. The delegation of France, offended by the fact that France has begins to the level of a minor naval power (parity with Italy), demanded an equal tonnage with the fleet of Japan. The French motivated this with a great length of their coastline, as well as the need for the protection of communications connecting the metropolis with the colonies.
France planned to create two linear squadron - the Atlantic and Mediterranean. Meanwhile, within the framework of her 175,000 tons, she could have only 5 linkers (35,000 tons), of which it was possible to make only one squadron. Referring to the above mentioned mathematical equality, the French argued that due to the restrictions imposed on the German fleet by the Versailles, they, the French, could preserve an existing tonnage, that is, 575,000 tons. Consequently, the total displacement of their battleships should be 290,000 tons, that is, almost also as the Japanese fleet.
However, these requirements met the sharp resistance to the UK, the Eternal Rival of France. England did not want a recent ally to increase the tona of his fleet at the expense of the Germans. The British motivated his position by the fact that in the future the German fleet could increase and then said equality will be broken, and the three main European fleets will exceed their tonnage of the British fleet. By the way, such an argument testified that just two years after Versaille, the British were already ready to look through the fingers to the revival of the German Sea Power.
Both Anglo-Saxon states firmly adhered to the specified position. When the French delegation requested directives from Paris, Hughes was energetically pressed on the French Prime Minister Aristide Briana, saying that in the event of France, "in the eyes of the world community will be responsible for the disarmament conference." Brian capitula. In compensation, the French delegation drew a larger tonnage of light units and submarines, resolutely rejecting the 200,000 tons offered to it. She demanded 420,000 tons, including 90.000 tons for submarines.
Against this, in turn, began to protest the United Kingdom, which was still well remembered by the restful, which was learned by her commercial fleet German submarines. The British delegation stated that such a number of French submarines represents the threat of the British Empire. British representative Lord Lie (Lee) said: "France never had to be afraid of the invasion of the UK, having a weak army; British linear ships cannot threaten the existence of France for no one hour. But France can completely destroy England with submarines. " On this basis, he demanded a complete cessation of their construction.
But here the British met a decisive back. The French representative was parried: "If England does not intend to use his linear ships against France, which she keeps, in all likelihood, for sardine catching, so let it be allowed to build submarines for botanical research of the seabed." The French supported the Italians, the Japanese and Americans, who also were supporters of this type of weapons. The British delegation had to give up.
The Japanese delegation externally seemed satisfied with the third place in the world. The Japanese worried about other problems, compared to which the questions of the tonnage of the battleship were rejected into the background. First of all, they feared the Anglo-American rapprochement on the Pacific Ocean and the expansion of American naval databases in the Philippines and the island of Guam. If this happened, the US fleet would significantly approach the Japanese Islands.
On the concession of Japan, another factor influenced, although to a lesser extent - the fate of the Lincher Mutsu. According to American proposals, he had to go on the layer. Since its construction was fully completed on October 24, 1921, Japan was important to maintain it in order to have two ships with an artillery of a 406 mm caliber. Therefore, they were offered to pass on the layer instead of it, the outdated dreadnought "settsu" (it was laid on the water in 1911; 12 instruments of caliber 305 mm). Thus, the total number of destroyed ships persisted, but the total displacement of the remaining units increased by 13.600 tons, to 313,000 tons.
Meeting participants met this offer "in bayonets." They really did not want to leave the Japanese at the disposal of the two newest lincars of large combat power. However, the Americans came unexpectedly for helping the Asians. The two of their ship with the guns of a 406 mm caliber - "Colorado" and "West Virginia", ready for 80%, were also intended on the layer. Taking advantage of the precedent with Mutsu, the Americans promised that they would complete these two ships, and instead they would deal two older - "North Dacota" and "Delaware". Again, while the total number of ships did not change, but the total tonnage increased by 25.200 tons (up to 525.850 tons).
There was already sharply protested the British, who had not a single linker designed after the Etland battle. The most powerful their ship is the linear cruiser "Hood" - was built on old drawings, only partially changed after the battle in May 1916.
Japanese Linor. "Mutsu"
In order to break the resistance of the British, the conference agreed that 2 new linkers of 35,000 tons with a 406 mm caliber was built to preserve the British equilibrium. Encouraging, they should have replaced 3 King George V type and one type of "Orion", due to which the number of battleships in the British fleet would decrease to 20, whereas their total tonnage would be 558.950 tons, which gave exceeding American Fleet 33.100 tons. Such an excess of the parties was recognized as permissible, since all British dieders were built until 1916 and over the next 10 years they were all approaching to top bar life.
Of course, the question of the "newest" linear ships for France and Italy did not even climb that even more enraged the French that had battleships exclusively pre-war design. Even 5 unfinished battleships like "Normandie" were laid back in 1913, that is, they were morally outdated. In order to sweeten the bitter pill, France was allowed to temporarily save tonnage, exceeding the permissible 175,000 tons, namely 221.170 tons, and after 1927, France could start replacing old battleships to new ones, but already within a tonnage established by the agreement.
Italy received the same permission, whose linear fleet was in a state of almost deplorable (out of 15 of the battleships in 1921 only 5 represented real combat value, the remaining 10 were hopelessly outdated and, moreover, strongly worn).
***
The lost list of linear ships and linear cruisers, the possession of which was allowed, looked like this.
Great Britain: "Ajax", "Barham", "Benbow", "CENTURION", "EMPEROR OF INDIA", "HOOD", "IRON DUKE", "KING GEORGE V", "MALAYA", "MALBOROUGH", "QUEEN ELIZABETH", Ramillies, Renown, Repulse, "Resolution", "Revenge", "Royal Oak", "Royal Sovereign", "Thunderer", "Tiger", "Valiant", "Warspite".
Total 22 units with total displacement of 580.450 tons. After entering into operation two new battleships, allowed to Building ("Nelson" and "Rodney") were handed over to the "Ajax", "Centurion", "King George V" and Thunderer, and the total tonnage of 20 ships was 558.950 tons.
USA: Arizona, Arkansas, "California", "Delaware", "Florida", "IDAHO", "Maryland", "Mississippi", "Okiahoma", "Nevada", "New Mexico", "New York", "North Dakota", "Pennsylvania", "Tennessee", "Texas", "Utah", "Wyoming".
Total 18 units with total displacement 500.650) tons. After the end of construction, the battles "Colorado" and "Vest Virginia" replaced the DELAWARE and North Dacota battleships, and the total displacement was 525.850 tons.
Japan: "Fuso", "Haruna", "Hiei", "Hyuga", "LSE", "Kirisima". "Kongo", "Mutsu", "Nagato", "Yamashiro".
Total 10 units with a total displacement of 313,300 tons.
France: "BRETANGE", "CONDORCET", "Courbet". "Diderot", "France", "Jean Bart", "Lorraine", "Paris", "Provence", "Voltaire".
Total 10 units with a total displacement of 221.170 tons. Considering the fact that all these ships are lowered in 1909? 12, long ago, it was outdated for a long time, it was allowed to build 3 new linkers with standard displacement of 35,000 tons, with their bookmark in 1927, 1929 and 1931. However, France could not use this permission due to the disadvantage of funds.
Italy: "Andrea Doria", "Caio Duilio", "Conte Di Cavour". "Dante Alighieri", "Giulio Cesare", "Leonardo Da Vinci", "Napoli", "Regina Elena", "Roma", "Vittorio Emanuele".
Only 10 units with a total displacement of 182.800 tons. However, the 4th last ships were launched back in 1904 07 years. And they were armormen (dodreduta). Dreadnought "Leonardo Da Vinci", sank in Taranto from the explosion of the cellars on August 2, 1916, was raised in November 1919 and was introduced into the Doc, but due to lack of funds was not repaired. He was put on the layer in 1922. Therefore, the Italians were also allowed to build 3 new linkers of 35,000 tons, with the laying of them in 1927, 1929, 1931. The lack of funds did not allow to take advantage of this permit.
***
After figured out with lincars, the delegations began to take up submarines. But now it was about restricting the underwater war against the merchant fleet.
On this issue reported a member of the US delegation, Senator E. Root (E. root). The essence of his proposals was reduced to the fact that in all cases it should be checked for cargo. If the vessel after verification is subject to destruction, then it is necessary to guarantee the life of its passengers and the crew. Without compliance with these conditions, the vessel cannot be attacked, and if the check is impossible, then you need to abandon the attack. Violators of these decrees are subject to a court as war criminals.
Under the pressure of Hughes, the proposal of the root was approved and on January 6, 1922, delegates approved the final version of the text of a separate agreement consisting of three points on the rules of the underwater war against the merchant fleet. Paragraph 1 contained the above proposals of the root; Paragraph 2 called on behalf of the participants of the contract the peoples of the whole world to conclude a comprehensive agreement establishing the rules for conducting underwater war; Item 3 called on the international right to take a ban on the use of submarines to violate maritime trade.
Despite the fact that representatives of France signed this contract, the French government refused to ratify it, wishing through the expansion of the underwater fleet to compensate for the advantage of the British linear fleet. The Anglo-French disputes on this occasion continued until the 1930 London Conference.
***
During the discussions in Washington, the separation line between the conference participants was clearly signed. For one side there were US and the United Kingdom, on the other - Japan, France and Italy. Both groups pursued opposite interests, both wanted to extract the maximum benefit from the restrictions received. Such an atmosphere that reigned at the negotiations did not contribute to the initial idea of \u200b\u200bWilson about full disarmament.
It became known that conference was confidential negotiations between the British and the Americans, during which the United States received consent to their main proposals in return for the promise that the British fleet will retain its position in the world in the process of general maritime disarmament. True, the UK still had to abandon the first position among the fleets, but it was better to "share it with a relative" than with the Japanese could have happened if the weapon race had continued.
With the Germans, as with rivals on the sea, it was possible to no longer reckon, France escaped far ahead for the land forces. Therefore, the efforts of British diplomacy were aimed at limiting at least the sea forces of France. With the support of the United States, these efforts were crowned with success. In turn, the French managed to avoid discussing the problem of restricting the land forces (what was called by the British), so they also had their consolation.
As for airfare ships, the maximum displacement (27 thousand tons) was established regarding them and determined the caliber of the main artillery (no more than 203 mm). It was also increased, compared with the American proposal, their general tonnage, but the quantitative ratio was preserved in proportion 5: 5: 3.
Regarding cruisers, the conference did not accept any restrictions, except for determining the maximum permissible tonnage (10 thousand tons) and the main artillery caliber (203 mm).
According to the ships of other classes, due to the decisive counteraction of France, no agreement was reached. The only one signed an agreement on the construction of the veversions of the countries participating in light ships on the order of third countries, but it was forbidden to sell or transfer them already constructed units.
***
On February 6, 1922, the final edition of the Agreement was signed in history under the name "Washington". It consisted of three sections containing 24 articles. The first section (Articles 1 20) contained the most important decrees concerning tonnage and weapons of the combat ships of the basic classes.
For the participants of the contract, the following sums of tonnage were determined. Linkors - United Kingdom and USA at 525.000 tons, Japan - 315.000 tons, France and Italy - at 175,000 tons (Art. 4). Avianeishing ships (aircraft carriers and hydroaviances) - United Kingdom and USA at 135,000 tons, Japan - 81,000 tons, France and Italy - 60,000 tons (Article 7).
The maximum allowable displacement of the lincard was installed at 35,000 tons - without taking into account the weight of fuel and lubrication, water for boilers, ammunition, food, crew (Article 5), and the caliber of its main artillery in 406 mm (Article 6). Only the United Kingdom in order of exception was allowed to leave the linear cruiser "Hood" with a displacement of 42.100 tons.
The aircraft carrier displacement should not exceed 27,000 tons (Article 9), and each of the participants of the contract was allowed to re-equip into aircraft carriers of two linkers or linear cruisers from among those intended on the layer, provided that the displacement of each of them will not exceed 33,000 tons. The aircraft carrier caliber was limited to 203 mm, the number of such guns was 10 barrels for ships with displacement to 27,000 tons and 8 barrels for larger displacement ships (Article 10).
The agreement was given a successful list of those battleships and linear cruisers who could remain in the fighting composition of fleets (Appendix 5), as well as decrees concerning the service life and methods for replacing battleships and aircraft carriers. With the exception of ships, lost as a result of accidents that could be replaced immediately, the remaining ships were allowed to change to new only after 20 years of operation.
The maximum displacement of cruisers was determined at 10,000 tons, and the caliber of their guns in 203 mm (Article 12). It should be noted that in this case the delegates were taken as a sample British cruisers like "Effingham", which just entered into operation. Their displacement was 9,800 tons, and the weapon was represented by the seven guns of the caliber of 190 mm.
It was forbidden in peacetime to re-equip civilians in the military ships. The only thing that was allowed is to strengthen decks so that in the future, if necessary, it was possible to put guns by caliber to 152 mm (Article 14).
In the Pacific Pool, the Pacific Participants were allowed to build naval bases in the following regions (Article 19): 1) of Great Britain - on the shores of Canada, Australia and New Zealand, as well as in Singapore. She was forbidden to strengthen the base in Hong Kong; 2) The United States is on the west coast of the states, in Alaska, in the area of \u200b\u200bthe Panama Canal, in Hawaii. They were forbidden to strengthen Aleuts, Philippines and GUAM; 3) Japan - on the Japanese Islands themselves, in the area of \u200b\u200bthe Korean Strait, on Sakhalin. She was forbidden to strengthen the Kuriles, Bonin Archipelago, Pescadora, Ryuku (Okinawa) and Formose Island (Taiwan).
***
The contract was considered valid until December 31, 1936 (Section 3, Art. 23), and this period was subject to automatic extension, if two years before the expiration, none of the participants will terminate it. Cancellation of the contract also occurred automatically two years after leaving some of the participants from it.
Eight years after the signing of the Agreement, a new conference was to be gathered to clarify the limitations relating to battleships in the light of new scientific and technical achievements (Article 22).
From fulfilling the instructions of the contract, it was possible to avoid only in the case of the war, having previously notified the remaining participants (Article 22). The Special Protocol applied to the Agreement contained in addition to the above-mentioned resolution concerning the methods of underwater war, also a ban on the use of poisoning substances in hostilities to the sea.
***
Evaluating the results of the Washington Conference, it must be emphasized that she for some time softened the differences between the states of the Entente. On the other hand, she deepened and supplemented the Versailles' contract, becoming the second most important composite element The so-called Versailles-Washington system. Forming international relations.
Of course, as any agreement, the Washington Agreement was a certain compromise. It's only therefore it could not hold back the marine arms race. It is more correct to say that this agreement has changed the number of naval policies of some countries. Thus, the lack of quantitative restrictions in the category of light surface units and submarines allowed all countries, especially "offended" when distributing tonsuna of large ships (Japan, France, Italy) to take this opportunity to increase their fleets. In the future, they all acted.
The greatest results of the conference were pleased with the ruling circles of the United States. Although Americans losses associated with the destruction of unfinished battleships and linear cruisers amounted to about $ 357 million, the Agreement limited Japan's appetites, returned to China useful policies "open doors", established the principle of parity with the Navy of the United Kingdom. Thus, the "income" exceeded the "consumption".
Implementation of solutions of the Washington Treaty
So, the Washington Agreement made specific qualitative and quantitative restrictions on the construction of battleships and aircraft carriers, as well as high-quality cruisers, leaving complete freedom of action during the construction of destroyers, submarines and ships of other classes.
Linkers
According to the contract, to The construction of new battleships immediately began only the United Kingdom. Two new ship (recall, in return for three types "King George V" and one type "Orion") were laid on the stocks already in 1922.
It was "Rodney" and "Nelson", launched into the water in 1925 and entered into force in 1927. When they were constructed, projects of linear cruisers of the 1921 sample cruisers were partially used, the construction of which ceased in accordance with the decisions of the Conference.
Having standard displacement of 33.900 tons (Rodney) and 33.950 tons (Nelson), they were armed with 9 caliber tools 406 mm with a shooting range of 32 km, 12 guns with a caliber of 152 mm, 6 anti-aircraft caliber of 120 mm, as well as 8 anti-aircraft for 40 mm caliber and 15 machine guns. In addition, they had two underwater torpedo devices of a caliber of 609 mm. Powerful armor (on Waterlinnia - 356 mm, decks from 76 to 159 mm, Tower of GC 178? 406 mm) protected only vital parts of the ship, but still significantly reduced the speed of all 23 nodes.
The main architectural feature of the Linkov type "Nelson" was that all three towers of 406-mm guns (1300 tons each) were in the nasal part. The three-way fock mast changed a five-storey superstructure of a prismatic form. To avoid her smoke, the pipe was transferred towards the stern, thanks to which the boilers were behind the running turbines, and not before them. Much attention was paid to the anti-unpeded protection and separation of the ship to waterproof compartments. The cost of each linker amounted to 14.893.538 pounds sterling. In general, it turned out very powerful, but rather low-speed ships.
Although after the Washington Treaty, only the most modern battleships remained in the Fleets of the Great Power, which did not exceed 10 years, but due to the continuous progress of technology, as well as due to the combat experience acquired in local conflicts and "small wars", there was a time The need for their upgrades.
Improved their ships not only by the participants of the Treaty, but also other states who had battleships either armor of coastal defense. In the period 1922-1931 This modernization was held by the United Kingdom (5 "REVENGE", 5 types of "Queen Elizabeth"); France (3 Courbet type ships, 3 types "Bretagne"); United States (2 types "Florida", 2 "Wyoming", 2 types "New York", 2 "NEVADA" type); Japan (3 types "Kongo"); (3 types of "gangut"); Argentina (2 types "Rivadavia"); Chile ("Almirante Latorre"); Turkey ("Yawus Selim"); Germany (3 old schlesien battleship).
Modernization was, first of all, in the installation of new equipment for controlling fire, which made it possible to conduct a targeted shooting at distances over 20 km; In the restructuring of armored towers to increase the angle of lifting the trunks (for example, an increase in the angle of American 356-mm guns from 15 degrees to 30 increased their range from 19 km to 30 km; at the British 381-mm guns Transition from 20 degrees to 30 increased range from 21 up to 29 km); In strengthening anti-aircraft artillery (as a rule, 4? 8 guns caliber 75? 127 mm); In the dismantling of the torpedo devices and parts of the income manual artillery.
In addition, anti-discord protection has improved by device in the underwater part of the hull of special caissons (the so-called "bulb"). They increased the width of the ship on how much meters and thereby gave the place of the bang of torpedoes from the corps actually, which reduced the consequences of this explosion. The horizontal reservation of decks is also intensified for sewn from airbabes and from shells released from a long distance.
At the same time, steam machines were replaced by a turbine, and instead of coal boilers, the boilers were put on liquid fuel - fuel oil. This greatly facilitated ships, which made it possible to increase either speed or booking. On the upper deck stirred one - two catapults to start the hydraulic agents, correcting the fire to the guns of the GK, as well as cranes for lifting these aircraft from water.
Modernization radically changed the initial appearance battleships. Gradually, all these changes led to the disappearance of the difference between lincars and linear cruisers, so by the end of the 1920s, despite the preservation of theoretical separation, almost they became ships of the same class. Modernization was produced until the very beginning of World War II.
Aircraft carriers, hydroaviogencies, air transport
According to the representations of the 20s, the ship's aircraft should have applied bomb strikes on the enemy ships, adjust the fire of the instruments of the main caliber of the battleships and cruisers, to reconcile the water area and the opponent bases, protect their ships from his aviation. Given the small range of flights of the then aircraft, all these actions became possible only when using the appropriate ships - aircraft carriers and hydroaviances that have equipment that makes it possible to take off airplanes and landing them.
At first, both of these classes occupied almost the same positions, but soon a large autonomy of aircraft carriers (the possibility of use, regardless of the state of the sea, atmospheric conditions, and without limiting speed during takeoff and landing of aircraft), they strongly put forward them in the first place among all subclasses of avianceca ships.
Convenient starting deck, making a possible takeoff and landing of wheel aircraft, as well as spacious hangars led to the fact that the number of their aircraft groups quickly exceeded 20, reaching a record mark 90 on American aircraft carriers of LEXINGTON. In addition to aircraft, the aircraft carriers had enough strong artillery armament (4? 16 caliber guns from 120 to 203 mm and machine guns), since it was believed that they themselves should defend against the attacks of light surface vehicles of the enemy. At that time, the problem of landing on aircraft carriers of high-speed bombers was not yet solved, so their aircroups consisted mainly of fighters and scouts.
In 1921 1930, 13 aircraft carriers (5 in the United Kingdom, 3 in the USA, 3 in Japan) entered the system, 9 were re-equipped linear cruisers or linkers, 2 - rebuilt civil courts and only 2 were designed from the very beginning as aircraft carriers. It is these two ships who demonstrated outstanding design solutions and principles. The British aircraft carrier "Hermes", built in 1919? 1924, was distinguished by a long flight deck (182 m), under which there were hangars. All deck superstructures and anti-aircraft artillery were on the right side in the so-called "island", so that almost the entire width of the deck (27 m) was available to airplanes. It is such a constructive solution later that it became a model for most types of aircraft carriers.
Another successful version was the Japanese Hosho, built in 1918? 1922. Not too big starting deck (163-19 m) allowed to start and sit only with light aircraft, but it is necessary to take into account that the Japanese have achieved its maximum area, removing the originally projected superstructures. The emission of combustion products from steam boilers was carried out through pipes in the sides, below the level of the flight deck, there were all the main caliber tools. Such a scheme general location ("Gladkopalub") became typical for later Japanese aircraft carriers.
Transports of hydroxps, usually referred to as hydroavianos, did not have a starting deck. The seaplates took off with the help of a catapult, and after performing the task, the cranes were raised on the deck on the deck.
At first, this subclass of ships lay down certain hopes. It was assumed that they would interact with the intelligence forces of the fleet, however, the hydroavianosets should have been stopped to rise from water from water to the deck, that in conditions of threats from the submarine was too large risk. In addition, the launch and reception of the hydraulic parameters could not be carried out in fresh weather. In addition, these ships were relatively low, and the number of their aircraft gave way to aircraft carriers.
During the time period in question, 6 hydroavianosites were commissioned, of which 3 were re-equipped shopping ships, and 3 three were a special construction. If you do not consider Japan, where in the 30s 4 more hydroaviavianos were built, no one built more such ships until the Second World War.
Cruisers
The limitation of the total tonnage of the battleship caused an increase in interest in cruisers. High speed and good maneuverability allowed them to shy away from the battle with lincars, avoid submarines and aircraft attacks, while strong artillery weapons gave the opportunity to defeat the surface ships of all other classes. But at the beginning of the 20s, the latter from the series of cruisers, launched built during the war during the war.
The first cruisers fully designed and built after the war were completed in 1926-27, French cruisers like "Duguay Trouin" with a displacement of 7250 tons. According to the concept of the then French theorists, they did not have armor at all, but they developed the speed of 34 nodes (63 km / h). The same concept was accepted by the Italians, who until 1933 built 6 similar cruisers: 4 of the "Alberto di Giussano" (5.070 tons, speed 37 of the nodes) and 2 of the Luigi Cadorna type (5.000 tons, the speed 42 of the node). However, later both the Italians and the French refused the concept of light ultra-speed cruisers in favor of the so-called "Washington" cruisers.
The Washington Treaty has set pretty high quality limits for ships of this class. Therefore, as soon as restrictions on the number of battleships were introduced, the following artillery ships for them were introduced - cruisers - immediately occupied an important place in the expansion programs and the reorganization of Fleets of five great maritime powers for 1923? 27 years. Until the end of 1932, 40 cruisers were completed (not counting 2 British types "York" at 8390 tons and 4 Japanese types "Furutaka" and "AOBA" at 8100? 8,300 tons) and more than 10 were built.
Possessing a large radius of action, "Washington" cruisers were intended to control maritime communications, far intelligence and to apply artillery strikes on ships and opponent compounds. 203 mm caliber gun possessed a range of 30% greater than 152-mm guns, and shells (weighing 113-123 kg) - a significant destructive power of the shells. In addition, these ships were distinguished by a large navigation range (10,000 miles and more), quite strong anti-aircraft artillery, powerful torpedo weapons. In addition, they carried 2? 4 of the seaplane, launched from the catapult.
When meeting with small groups of enemy ships, Washington cruisers could lead with them, or, thanks to high speed, to evade him. High speed was the main trump card of these ships. To ensure it had to significantly increase the power of the machines. To get the necessary reserve of water displacement, the designers weakened armor. Some Washington cruisers have had armored to minima, others did not have it at all, for example, British cruisers who contemptively called Tin Class - "Class of Tin" (or canned cans).
This feature of their design caused many critical comments, especially since they themselves were too big target for shells and airbabes (the length of the case of about 170? 200, the width of about 20 meters). There was also problematic utility of a 203 mm caliber tools. They did not imagine any threat to Lincora, and in conditions of limited visibility (at night, in fog), when the distance distance was reduced, 203-mm guns were significantly inferior to 152 mm tools in rapidity.
In addition, Washington cruisers were too expensive. They cost an average of 1.5? 2 million pound sterling. In particular, therefore to The end of the 20s was determined two trends in the construction of cruisers: according to the first armor intensified, according to the second - built ships of smaller sizes, with easier artillery, but cheap and large series.
Firmware for HTC One SV from flash drive
Why is the laptop heats and what to do about it?
Reset to factory SAMSUNG smartphones