Naval Historywith Dr. Alex

Q&A · 1:55-5:15

Could Britain have kept pace before Washington?

Washington did not amount to an admission of permanent British naval inferiority. The Royal Navy still had a large surviving fleet, Britain remained willing to fund sea power, and American industrial capacity did not ensure congressional support for every planned ship.

Admiral Class BattlecruisersBattlecruisersBattleshipsG3 Class BattlecruisersN3 Class BattleshipsNaval Arms RaceNaval ProcurementRoyal NavyUS NavyWashington Naval Treaty
Watch at this timeFull video guide
Question

Did the Washington Naval Treaty show that Britain had been surpassed and could no longer keep pace with the United States?

Short answer

No. Britain retained a very large fleet and could still fund naval competition, while American industrial capacity did not guarantee that Congress would finance the full program.

Notes

Accepting the Washington Naval Treaty did not amount to a simple admission of permanent British inferiority. Britain emerged from the First World War with the world’s largest navy still substantially intact, unlike the severe losses and forced tradeoffs it would face in the Second World War. The United States had immense industrial capacity, although Congress might refuse to finance every proposed warship. British governments also disliked naval expense, but the navy’s central place in national security made funding more likely when ministers thought it necessary. The three cancelled Admiral-class hulls could have become aircraft carriers, while four G3s and the planned N3s showed that Britain still had major capital-ship programs available. Industrial capacity and political willingness therefore need to be considered separately.