Washington treaty allows the sale of old ships?

von Adler

von Adler

If the Washington treaty allowed the sale of old ships to allied, minor and neutral nations, who would have bought?

A small dreadnought for Sweden?
Dreadnoughts and/or battlecruisers for Turkey?
A dreadnought or a pair for Canada and Australia?
Dreadnoughts for Greece?
Yugoslavia allowed to gain one or two of the Austrian dreadnoughts or semi-dreadnoughts?
A large vessel for Romania?
One for Poland?
 
NHBL

NHBL

No treaty...

I can't see the treaty getting signed at all. It allows nations to bolster allies with cheap ships. In particular, Britain had so many 13.5" dreadnoughts that the Royal Navy could get a big boost. (Canada, Austrailia, at least, could be counted on to jump in if thre's any sign of war.)

Japan has no significant allies, and the USA has friendly powers--but not ones that can be counted on to jump into a war without good reason--and just as amny that don't like the Yankees.

And the idea of China with serious warships on the cheap would not make Japan feel happy. For that matter, even the USSR might try for some cheap ships...
 

wietze

The Netherlands definitely would have wanted ships for the east indies. So i could see Britain reinforcing Australia, and the Netherlands acquiring ships to bolster its defenses in the indies. Or maybe even buy a ship cheap enough to convert it into a carrier. it would mean headaches for the japanese.
 

Ward

The commonwealth nations were counted into the Royal Navy's total .
The ottoman's or Turkish Navy had paid for Two Battle ships pre war that the British Took over and they were on the losing side .
 

StevoJH

I'd be more interested if the treaty allowed the replacement of all current ships whenever the relevent naval power chose to do so, with the "20 year old replacement rule" only effecting new builds commissioned from the time of the treaty onwards.
 

Gunnarnz

hugh lupus said:
Article XVIIIEach of the Contracting Powers undertakes not to dispose by gift, sale or any mode of transfer of any vessel of war in such a manner that such vessel may become a vessel of war in the Navy of any foreign Power
How do you get around this?
Click to expand...

I think the OP may be suggesting a modification of the Washington Treaty such that that provision doesn't exist.
 
von Adler

von Adler

Yes. Several of the South American countries operated dreadnoughts. The Washington treaty was intended to cut down spending on naval construction. I am simply wondering if selling dreadnoughts, semi-dreadnoughts and pre-dreadnoughts to non-aligned powers were allowed in the Washington treaty, who would buy?

There's plenty of ships available. Russian Imperial Dreadnoughts, lots of British ones, ex-Austrian ones etc.

One or two for the Netherlands seem likely. Maybe one small for Sweden. Would the South American countries look to bolster their navies? Greece and perhaps Turkey (to counter Greece) seems likely. Greece and Turkey have two pre-dreadnoughts each that they would likely want to replace with something more modern.

Would Yugoslavia want one of the ex-Austrian semi-dreadnoughts or dreadnoughts? Would Italy allow it?

Thailand and Finland built two small coastal defence gunships inter-war each. Would they be interested in dirt-cheap dreadnoughts instead?
 

David S Poepoe

Banned
A lot of the small nations mentioned simply couldn't afford the upkeep and maintainence of dreadnoughts. Most of the British 12in gun armed dreadnoughts are simply worn out by war service. I've read references that the Romania was offered HMS Agincourt, but I doubt the Romanians could afford to keep her past the 1930s.
 

Hoist40

Banned
Greece might want either South Carolina and Michigan or Delaware and North Dakota. The Greeks already had two Mississippi class pre-dreadnaughts so they would be familiar with US ships and they could use the older ships as spare parts for the newer dreadnaughts if they bought them.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top
Top