Naval Agreement Facts

Posted by on Dec 13, 2020 in Uncategorized | No Comments

Simon was dissatisfied with Ribbentrop`s behaviour and stated that such statements were at odds with normal negotiations before leaving the negotiations. A few days later, on 5 June 1935, the British delegation changed its mind. Simon had discussed things with the British cabinet, who thought the deal might be in their best interest, and Simon was ordered to accept Hitler`s offer while it was still on the table. They feared that Hitler would withdraw his offer and embark on the construction of the German navy, which is much higher than its proposed level. Because of the past, Britain knew that Germany could quickly have the same naval capability as it. 23 A collection of documents relating to the Anglo-Japanese naval talks of October and November 1934 can be found in CAB 21/404. See also Simon and Chamberlain, `The Future of Anglo-Japanese Relations`, C.P. 233, 16 Oct 1934 in CAB 24/250; C.P. 238 and C.P. 247 in CAB 24/250.

To learn more about an observer, see Kennedy, Malcolm D., The Estrangement of Great Britain and Japan, 1917-1935 (Berkeley and Los Angeles, 1969), 326-30. Perhaps the best report is D.C. Watt, “United Kingdom, United States and Japan 1934,” in personalities and politics, p. 83-99.Google Scholar It was thought by experts in the British and German navy that the navy would reach tonnage limits at the earliest in 1942. This was not the case for several reasons, including design problems, insufficient construction space, shortage of skilled labour and lack of resources for raw materials. Germany`s main priorities were the Air Force and the Wehrmacht. So there`s a lot to be said for the heavy gun. The heavy gun has always been the traditional weapon that Britain relied on. It was the heavy artillery that defeated the Armada.

Our small ships had much heavier guns. During the construction of Queen Elizabeth, we committed ourselves to the heaviest guns in Europe and I have no remorse. These ships are among the most successful for the Royal Navy. Note, then, that nine 16-inch guns in three towers would cost very little more and weigh no more than nine, ten or eleven 14-inch guns in four rounds due to the heavy weight of the tower in the artillery house. It seems to me, therefore, that we should not consider the problem of successfully and satisfactorily placing 16-inch guns in the 35,000-tonne vessel, beyond the skills of competent designers in the United States, Japan or Germany or Italy. If they solve the problem satisfactorily and build ships that are fully capable of sailing, The ships that are well balanced in every respect and that can carry these much heavier guns, in the years to come, in the Royal Navy, it will be a kind of reproach that the first five great new battleships that we have built are an example for other countries, and with the sincere and honourable desire to delay the pace of naval armament – battleships that cost $40,000. and for 25 years, the 2023 factor in power in the Royal Navy`s battle fleet, were built on a base and with a force of arms, which is certainly worse than the contemporary ships they must strike.