On 03Oct2020 0649, xxxxxx@gmail.com wrote:
> That was true in the immediacy of the post WW1 antibellum period. They
> certainly had an intent to prevent Germany and company from re-arming
> and to punish them for the War, which was a bit hypocritical given it
> was in some sense a family feud (everyone's royals are interrelated)
> and everyone had a hand in the Bloc system that led to the war. The
> loser always gets terms dictated by the winner.
The Washington Naval Treaty had nothing to do with that - they didn't
involve Germany at all, as it was bound by the Treaty of Versailles. The
Anglo-German treaty was a different beast, and the UK signed it because
Germany was already breaking Versailles, so it was better than no
treaty. It didn't bring Germany into the treaty system entirely, but it
limited Germany to building ships under the same rules as the UK and to
a percentage of the UK's total tonnage, thus effectively bringing it
into the regime. Of course Germany followed the displacement rules about
as closely as the Japanese and Italians did (i.e. not very).

--
Rupert Boleyn <xxxxxx@gmail.com>