Quote:
Originally Posted by tater
I agree that the ratio played into the IJN's broken, Mahanian dcotrine, but face it, the Washington Treaty mostly affected Japanese morale. They simply did not have the capacity, or treasure to build a fleet any bigger than what they did.
IMHO, had the treaty been abrogated any earlier than it was, it would have made zero difference as they were spending more money than they had regardless.
|
I'm not so sure whether it is a matter of Mahanian doctrine that no armed force wants to be treaty-bound into a position where it doesn't have a chance of winning against the "likely opponent" even in theory. As it is, the 10:7 they pushed for was supposed to give them only a calculated 50% defensive success chance, which is hardly the probability you want when you are on the defensive, even not counting the fact your enemy has much more industry. The fact the Fleet Faction was willing (apparently) to accept that says that (at least at that time) any nationalism they have is well-tempered by their realistic appraisal of their limitations, politically and economically. It is not asking too much to be given a 50% chance to defend the country, and the politicians denied them this.
As for their ability to exploit a 10:7 if it was given to them, it would only have been one or two battleships difference, and they were already building said battleships so I don't think it is going to break them. Besides, if what you say is true, and the Americans knew or even suspected it at the time, it makes them even more idiotic to have made a push that merely alienates.
Finally, no American should be dissing either Mahan (in any case, his ideas were very popular at that time and have not really been pushed out entirely even today) or the idea of spending more than they have
