1930 London Naval Conference

It became clear that the five Powers did not form one unified group ; indeed, that though there were five Powers represented there were really two groups, so to speak, of three Powers each. One group consisted of the United States, Great Britain and Japan, and became known as the High Seas Group; the other, which was called the Continental Group, consisted of France, Italy and, again, Great Britain. In each Group the first two Powers could, strictly from their own geographical point of view, con sider their Naval affairs independently of discussion in the other Group; but Great Britain was interested in the proposals of both Groups; and from the point of view of securing a Five Power Treaty it was necessary that the conclusions of both Groups should be combined into a harmonious whole. This was not easy to achieve. No differences existed, for instance, amongst members of the High Seas Group on the question of limitation by cate gories, and a Conference confined to them would have engaged simply in programme making, a task which had already been sim plified for them by the almost complete Anglo-American agree ment on cruisers. But France and Italy were advocates of the principle of limitation by global tonnage, so that the Conference was divided on and had to face immediately this problem. At the London Conference a compromise on this question was reached. This agreement was not included in the text of the Treaty, for the Italian Delegation had declared that they would only be pre pared to accept it if the question of the ratio of naval strength be tween all the contracting parties were first settled, a condition which was not satisfied. Nevertheless in principle and on its merits all the Delegations did agree to the compromise which was reached on this previously baffling question, and accordingly Mr. MacDonald as President of the Conference reported its details in a letter to the Chairman of the Preparatory Commission at Geneva, to whose work it would clearly be of extreme value. The agreement provides that in practice the Powers should accept programmes which limit their warship building category by cate gory, though it allows a slight transfer between certain categories. A complete Five Power agreement, which is embodied in the Treaty, was also reached upon such matters as definitions, rules for replacement, rules for scrapping, etc.

Parity.

To this achievement was added an agreement on ac tual•programmes between the three Principal Powers. France and Italy were unable to join in this section (Part III) of the Treaty owing to a particular difficulty which the Conference at the time of its adjournment had been unable to dissolve. As the United States and Great Britain had agreed on parity between themselves, so Italy claimed Naval parity with the strongest Continental Euro pean Naval Power, which meant France. The Washington Treaty had recognised parity between France and Italy in capital ships and aircraft-carriers, and the Italian Delegation in London asked that the principle should be extended to other categories. The French did not agree, and therefore no figures for either country are included in Part III of the London Treaty. But hope of settling this question has not been abandoned. So far as nego tiations on the point were concerned, the Conference was only ad journed and conversations have since been proceeding with a view to settling the Franco-Italian difficulty.

As for the members of the High Seas Group, the United States and Great Britain had already agreed that parity in each category of ships should exist between them. Japan, whose capital ship and aircraft-carrier tonnages had been fixed in the Washington Treaty at 6o% of the strengths of each of the other two Powers, put forward in London a claim for an increased ratio in the various classes of auxiliary ships. In the negotiations all difficulties be

tween the Three Powers were composed, and they were able to sign an agreement which for the first time limits the building of cruisers, destroyers and submarines of all types. Thus limitation was extended far beyond the Washington Treaty provisions. Nor was the extension confined to categories not covered by that Treaty. With regard to capital shipbuilding restriction was car ried a stage further than it had been left in 1922. The following are the principal provisions of the London Treaty concerning specific programmes.

The Washington Treaty provided for a maximum capital ship replacement tonnage of 525,00o (15 units) each for the United States and the British Empire, 315,000 tons (9 units) for Japan and 175,000 for France and for Italy; these figures as to numbers of units to be reached by 1936 and as total tonnages by 1942. At the time of the London Conference the first three Powers still had ships in excess of these figures, the British Empire possessing 20, the United States 18 and Japan 1 o ships. The London Treaty decided that the surplus ships, instead of being retained until 1936 should be rendered unfit for warlike service within eighteen months after the coming into effect of the Treaty. Moreover, the Washington Treaty would have permitted further building for replacement of older capital ships before 1936. Great Britain and the United States, for instance, could each have completed five new battleships and commenced a further five by then. The Lon don Treaty withdrew these provisions and declared a battleship "holiday" until 1936, except that France and Italy retained their right to build up to the tonnage, which they do not now possess, allowed them under the Washington Treaty. Apart from the great economies which this "holiday" means for the three principal Naval Powers, it will give time before the next Naval Conference for a thorough consideration of the question of the future of the capital ship.

With regard to aircraft-carriers the position was left practically as it had been by the Washington Treaty, except that carriers of less than 10,000 tons, which were previously not subject to limita tion, are now taken into account. The figures agreed upon for the cruiser, destroyer and submarine fleets of the three Powers are as follows, an Anglo-American effort to persuade the Conference to agree to the total abolition of the submarine having failed : The United States undertake not to complete more than fifteen 8-inch cruisers before 1935. It is open to the United States Gov ernment, moreover, instead of building to the figures entered for itself, to adopt a programme almost exactly identical with that fixed for Great Britain. The three Navies are to be brought within these strengths by December 31st, 1936, before which date it is agreed that a further Naval Conference shall be held to decide what regulation is to follow that. Meanwhile, since Great Britain cannot be indifferent to the size of the auxiliary fleets of European Powers, which for the present remain unrestricted, a clause in Part III of the Treaty provides that an alteration in the figures can be made on notification by one Power to the other two that in its opinion expansion is necessary to meet the requirements of national security consequent on new construction by a Power not bound by Part III of the Treaty. The other two Powers would then be entitled to make proportionate increases. But it is hoped that this clause need never be operated.