Chapter 561 The final naval ratio

The naval ratios proposed by various countries basically refer to their own interests. Even the naval ratio of Australasia is actually a proposal to strengthen Britain and France and themselves, maintain the gap between Britain and the United States, and the gap between Australasia and the island countries.

Although each country clearly knows that the ratio they proposed is unreasonable, it is actually related to their own national interests. These diplomats have no other advantages. They are really thick-skinned and unwilling to make the slightest concession.

This also caused the talks to last for more than half a month. In the end, Britain and the United States proposed the killer Cambodia to intimidate the island countries that refused to compromise on their naval ratio: "If the island countries continue to persist, every time the island countries build a main warship, the United Kingdom and the United States will Build four.”

Such a threat is not an exaggeration. Britain has invested hugely in the navy, and it can maintain its naval advantage over Germany, let alone a small island country.

All developments in the island country are currently sponsored by the United States. It is almost impossible for the island country to confront the United States in terms of funding.

After resolving the disputes between the island countries, the most important issue at present is the proportion of the navies of the United States and the United Kingdom.

In this dispute, the United States and the island countries support the United States and the United Kingdom at the same rate, and the United Kingdom and Australasia support the United Kingdom slightly more than the United States.

This also makes France’s opinions more important next. All countries began to win over French representatives and put forward their own conditions.

At the end of November, negotiations between various countries were still at a stalemate.

At this time, the British representative approached the French representative and tried his best to win the support of the French representative.

After taking a sip of red wine produced in France, British representative Thomas smiled and said: "Mr. Tirek, the British Empire needs your country's support. For the sake of the friendship between Britain and France, please do not hesitate to help."

French representative Tirek did not respond directly, but changed the topic: "The British Empire is the most powerful country in the world. Even a major crisis like the Irish War of Independence can be easily resolved, so why does it need France's help? ?”

There is no doubt that Tirek only cares about what conditions Thomas can offer, and he even scorns Thomas's talk of British-French friendship.

Although Britain and France did have close cooperation during World War I, in the history of Britain and France, the time of friendly relations was far less than the time of war. Britain and France are real neighbors with hundreds of years of history, and their relationship is not necessarily better than the relationship between France and Germany. How much.

Compared with the relationship between Britain and France, perhaps the relationship between France and the United States is closer. After all, France at that time single-handedly contributed to the independence of the United States. Without the support of the French, the 13 American colonies at that time would be far from being a rival to the United Kingdom.

If the relationship between the British Empire and Australasia is somewhat similar to that of mother and son, then the relationship between France and the United States is similar to that of father and son, but Americans do not agree.

"France is still strong, and I believe that the Moroccan crisis will be resolved soon. The Rife may be able to withstand the attack of the Spanish army, but they will definitely not be able to withstand the attack of the French army." British representative Thomas said with a smile.

Although there was no aboveboard promise, Thomas and Tirek, as senior diplomats, naturally understood the meaning of this passage.

Rather than saying that the British Empire believed that France could quickly resolve the Moroccan crisis, it was better to say that the British Empire supported France in resolving the Moroccan crisis.

This was also one of the conditions offered by the British to support the French in quickly pacifying Morocco and avoiding a war of attrition.

"Mr. Thomas, you know. France is one of the most powerful countries in the world, and we deserve a greater proportion of the navy. In view of France's damage, we agree to the same proportion as Australasia, but by no means Allow the proportion of island countries to exceed or be equal to France." Representative Tirek said his second condition with a smile.

France was still a top power before World War I, but after World War I, it had widened the gap with Britain and the United States.

In this distribution of naval proportions, in addition to fighting for their own interests, each country is also trying to gain some face for itself.

If the proportion of French people is equal to that of island countries, what will tens of millions of French people think? An island country that was a backward country a few decades ago has climbed over France in a short period of time. Isn't this an insult to France, the European hegemon?

Especially after World War I, the French believed that their country had become the most powerful country on the European continent, but they would not allow France's ratio to be lower than that of the island countries.

As for Australasia, although it is also a country that has only risen in a short period of time, after all, most of its citizens are composed of Europeans, and it is not so shameful to be criticized by Europeans.

What's more, the United States and island countries do not support France's naval ratio exceeding that of island countries, but in the naval ratio proposed by Australasia, France's ratio should exceed that of island countries.

Comparing the two, it is obvious which one is more in line with their own interests. Naturally, the French do not mind staying together with Australasia for warmth.

"Well, this is natural. Regardless of other considerations, France is also the most powerful country on the European continent, and it should have a navy far exceeding that of the island countries. Europe is still the most developed region in the world, and a barbaric country like the island country does not have any The qualifications are on par with ours." Thomas nodded, agreeing to the Frenchman's proposal.

If the French can be allowed to support themselves, then the proportion of the navies of the five countries will be Britain \u003e United States \u003e France = Australasia \u003e Island countries.

Even if France's naval proportion is increased, it is impossible to threaten Britain's naval status.

On the contrary, France supported the United Kingdom, making the island country's naval ratio the lowest among all countries. Naturally, it will also be resented by the island country.

Letting the French stand on the opposite side of the island country is equivalent to standing on the opposite side of the United States, which is beneficial to the British strategic interests.

During the conversation between the two representatives, a naval tonnage ratio that was enough to determine the world situation was also determined.

At the meeting on the second day, France was uncharacteristically supportive of the British and Australasian proposals.

This also caught the United States and island countries off guard, and ultimately had to make further compromises when they were at a disadvantage.

In the end, it took more than a month to finally have a preliminary framework for the ratio of the sizes of the navies of the five countries.

Britain still gained a slight advantage over the United States, with the tonnage of capital ships limited to 600,000 tons.

The United States follows closely behind, and the tonnage of its main battleships is limited to 550,000 tons.

Next are France and Australasia, each with a main warship tonnage of 350,000 tons.

The least ambitious island nation has its main warship tonnage limited to 300,000 tons, but the gap with France and Australasia is not too huge.

This is also the result of mutual compromise. Although the United Kingdom maintains an advantage over the United States, Australasia and France maintain an advantage over the island countries, the advantages are limited to 50,000 tons, which is the tonnage of a main battleship.

If there is only one main warship, the difference in navy strength is not that huge, and there is still hope of turning a bicycle into a motorcycle.

After the naval proportions of these five more important countries have been determined, only Italy's navy remains.

The Italian government demanded a sky-high price and directly issued a request of 350,000 tons. Naturally, it was jointly rejected by five countries.

Just kidding, this kind of naval tonnage is a compromise that took the five most powerful countries more than a month to arrive at. Naturally, it cannot be shaken by a country like Italy.

After some bargaining, the Italian navy's tonnage was limited to 175,000 tons, which directly cut the Italian's request in half, reflecting the domineering power of the five countries united.

Together with Italy's naval tonnage, the naval tonnage of these six countries has determined the naval tonnage of all countries in the world.

Because no other country can pose a threat to these countries in terms of navy, Germany and the Austro-Hungarian Empire have been restricted from developing their navy. Russia is busy with the civil war and has no time to develop its navy, so naturally there is no need for corresponding restrictions.

However, this does not mean that the naval limitation treaty has been officially reached.

In addition to restrictions on main warships, various auxiliary warships, including submarines, have become the focus of the next discussion.

Because of the impact of World War I, the British were very afraid of submarines from other countries.

This is no joke. During World War I, the elusive German submarines caused enough suffering to British warships and merchant ships. This has become an unforgettable memory for the British Navy.

But it is obvious that other countries have different opinions on the development of submarines.

Submarines can pose a huge threat to some warships, and they are also the only means of resistance for countries with relatively weak navies against powerful navies.

If submarines are banned, it will be equivalent to destroying the hope of a weak naval country to resist a strong naval power. This is something that many countries do not want to see.

Especially island countries, which have the smallest navy among all countries, naturally disagree with the British proposal to completely ban the development of naval submarines.

It has also brought the naval limitation treaty that should have been reached quickly into a period of stagnation. Negotiations on small and medium-sized warships and submarines cannot be completed within a few months.

This is actually a good thing for Australasia. Because the construction of the three R108 battleships has come to an end, it is expected that they will be completed within half a year and officially launched for testing.

As long as it can be delayed for another half a year, the three battleships in Australasia can be completed before the naval limitation treaty is signed, and it will not be considered a violation of the naval limitation treaty.

In order to buy enough time for the shipyards, Australasian diplomatic representatives obtained instructions from Arthur to join the debate on small and medium-sized warships and submarines and muddy the waters as much as possible to keep the countries bickering for longer.

The good news is that the maximum standard displacement of a single main warship and the total tonnage limit of aircraft carriers need to be discussed. This will also delay the conclusion of the naval limitation treaty again. Generally speaking, it will not only meet Arthur's requirements, but even It is possible to exceed expectations.

However, a subsidiary treaty was quickly finalized.

This subsidiary treaty has nothing to do with the size of each country's navy, but only concerns the fortresses on the islands occupied by each country in the Pacific.

According to regulations, except for the legal territories of each country, other Pacific islands are not allowed to build new naval bases and fortresses to reduce conflicts and contradictions between countries in the Pacific region.

This is good news for Australasia, because the division of military districts in Australasia has long been completed and the naval base has been built long ago. This subsidiary treaty will have no impact.

The second update of 3200 words, please vote for me and support!

Today we will continue to make thousands, and it has been updated. Please vote for me and support me!