The treaty system was a double-edged bargain because cumulative tonnage compromised carrier protection. The argument is that Britain and the United States cheated least because the rules supported their need for enough hulls while leaving room for design creativity. Italian cruiser practice and evasions by Japan and France provide the contrast. Compliance therefore depended partly on incentives as well as enforcement, since powers that could meet strategic needs within the rules had more reason to remain inside them. The result links carrier architecture to the durability of interwar naval arms control.
Notable Point · 35:30-36:26
Why naval treaty compliance varied
Treaty compliance depended partly on strategic fit: Britain and the United States gained useful fleet numbers from the system, while other naval powers found stronger reasons to evade its limits.