Text 18160, 94 rader
Skriven 2011-05-04 18:00:27 av Roy Witt (1:387/22)
  Kommentar till text 18043 av Ward Dossche (2:292/854)
Ärende: Guantanamo
==================
04 May 11 00:12, Ward Dossche wrote to Roy Witt:


 RW>> In 1938 the treaty parties (France, UK and USA) agreed on a new
 RW>> displacement limit of 45,000 tons for battleships.

 RW>> The London Naval Treaty effectively ended on September 1, 1939 with
 RW>> the beginning of WW2.

 WD> The "second" London Naval treaty ... please ...

That's the one. Follow the timeline, above.

FYI, the 1st Naval 'conference' occured in 1908. A treaty from that
conference never became affective. The 2nd 'conference' occured in 1930.
It didn't produce a treaty, but it was only a meeting to change Article
22 of the Washington Naval Treaty. The 3rd conference in 1935 produced
your Second LNT, but it didn't matter by this time.

 WD> The fact that nobody paid attention does not imply it was terminated,
 WD> because it carries no termination clause.

If you have no participants, the treaty is terminated due to
non-participation.

 WD> Other than that, it confirmed article-22 of the first London Naval
 WD> Treaty

Article 22 is part and parcel of the Washington Naval Treaty of 1922.

 WD> based upon which Dönitz in 1945/46 was found to be in breach
 WD> and declared guilty at Nüremberg.

Germany was never a signatory of The Second London Naval Treaty.
Therefore, Donitz was not in violation.

 WD> How could Dönitz have been in breach when according to your Googled
 WD> wisdom

Googled wisdom looks to be much better than your references that are
outdated, in error and without merit.

 WD>  the Second London Naval Treaty had expired in 1939?

Donitz couldn't be in breach because Germany wasn't party to the 2nd
London Naval Treaty as was the UK, USA, France, Italy and Japan.

When Japan pulled out of the treaty, the treaty theoretically expired. In
this case, it took 5 to tango.

 RW>> The Iowa class battleships were designed after the beginning of WW2,
 RW>> and they took full advantage of the escalator clause (16-inch guns,
 RW>> 45,000 standard displacement) even though there was no longer a
 RW>> treaty.

 WD> The Iowa class battleships in their WW2 configuration displaced
 WD> 52,000 tonnes, please cut the bull about "standard displacement".

You should learn how to read Naval ship configurations.

The Iowa class battleships met the 45k ton requirement of standard
displacement.

The 52k you mis-read is full service battle displacement. That is with a
full compliment of fuel, ammunition and personel.

 WD> They were in breach.

Not!

If you think they were, then the other 4 members of that treaty were also
in breach.

 RW>> BTW, the UK's HMS Hood was a 46,000 ton battleship.

 WD> HMS Hood was a battlecruiser, not a battleship, launched in 1918...

Never the less, she is over weight by your standards.

 WD> 12 years before the first London Naval Treaty

What 1st London Naval Treaty would that be?

 WD> And BTW, the US also breached the first London Naval Treaty.

It couldn't have been breached, as it was never fully ratified.


                R\%/itt

  Fox News was not used as a source for information in this message!

--- Twit(t) Filter v2.1 (C) 2000-10
 * Origin: SATX Alamo Area Net * South * Texas, USA * (1:387/22)