Comments by "Steve Valley" (@stevevalley7835) on "The Drydock - Episode 152" video.
-
Returning to the question of the UK selling it's West Indies colonies to the US in exchange for the US canceling the UK's debt from WWI, which I brought up in the Q&A on the shore bombardment video of May 12th, I have done further reading on the WWI debt issue. The UK had made substantial loans to it's allies prior to US entry in April 1917. From that point on, the US bore the financial burden. As it worked out, the amount owed to the UK by the other allies was almost equal to the amount the UK owed to the US. On August 1, 1922, Arthur Balfour wrote a note to the French ambassador to the UK, words to the effect that the UK did not want to lean so heavily on France, and the other allies, for repayment of their debts. The UK would rather cancel all the debts owned to it, and forego reparations from Germany, but, as the US was pressing the UK so hard for repayment, the UK needed the cash. The content of this note was publicly published by the UK government, which, to me, gives the note the color of an official offer by the UK government to cancel the war debts owned to it, if it is relieved of it's debt to the US. As noted in my May 12th question, extrapolating the price the US paid Denmark for the Virgin Islands to the total land mass of all the UK held islands, plus British Honduras, comes out to $4.15B, which equals the $4B of principle owed, plus a portion of accrued interest. What a different world it would have been, had the UK, effectively, paid it's debt to the US with dirt, rather than gold, and, in accordance with the Balfour note, then cancelled all debts owed to it, cutting the debt, and corresponding drag on the economies of the other allies, in half.
5
-
@JohnSmith-of2gu There were horizontal, reciprocating, steam engines in paddle wheel driven ships. On a mid 19th century stern wheeler, typically two cylinders, each driving a connecting rod attached to the corresponding end of the paddle shaft. The side paddle steamer Sudan, built in 1921, is still carrying passengers on the Nile. I saw some film of the engine running some years ago. It is a triple expansion, and it looked like it was installed horizontally with the paddle shaft being, effectively, an extension of the crankshaft. As you said, getting the power turned ninety degrees to drive a screw would involve some very large gearing. Of course, if there was a compelling need for a horizontal TE and the ship was wide, you could do a horizontal opposed engine. Then the engine could be mounted longitudinally with the crankshaft on the ship's centerline.
3
-
@Dave_Sisson The US taking over all the West Indies colonies would require some artful spin. The US had prohibition at the time, and a significant industry in the West Indies, particularly Jamaica, was rum production. Puerto Rico had been defined as part of the US, and Puerto Rican citizens as citizens of the US by the Jones Act, so Puerto Rico had prohibition, but the US apparently did not impose prohibition in the Philippines. The Caribbean was pretty much an American lake anyway. The US invaded Haiti in 1915, and invaded the Dominican Republic and Mexico in 1916. Cuba? The US invaded a second time in 1906. The US intervened in Central America so many times that British Honduras would have been an exceptionally handy base. Besides, from my readings, by 1920, British Honduras had more trade with the US than with the UK. The West Indies were not particularly of strategic value to the UK, as most of the UK's colonies are around the Indian Ocean, but the West Indies are on the US' doorstep, and control access to the Panama Canal. I added a postscrip to my question in the post last month: there was a lot of chatter in US newspapers at the time about what a great deal it would be for the US to swap the IOUs the UK had written for the islands, but Lloyd George said no, Harding said no and the Prince of Wales said no. I wish I could jump in the WABAC machine and ask why they were against it. It's not like the UK never gave up a territorial claim before. There was a lot of trading real estate back and forth when the border between the US and Canada was set at the 49th parallel. The US had been buying land from other powers since 1803. I don't understand what the problem was. I would jump at the chance to pay a debt with dirt, instead of gold.
3
-
2
-
@timengineman2nd714 the full text of the treaties is on line. I read the replacement sequence off of the WNT. The treaty required the older ships to be decommissioned when the new ships entered service, three years after they were laid down, so, technically, as the drawdowns from First London only gave the USN 68kt of headroom, theoretically, Arkansas would need to be decommissioned when Washington commissioned in May of 41, but, by then, events had made the treaties irrelevant. As an exercise, I considered what if the USN had taken a page from the Admiralty's book in April 1917, and cancelled outright BBs that had been ordered, but not laid down, as the Admiralty cancelled three Rs and a QE. That would mean Tennessee and all the Colorados would never be built. To fill the USN's 525,000t quota, the USN would have needed to retain not only the South Carolinas, but also three of the pre-dreadnought Connecticut class. Being saddled with such hopelessly obsolete ships, the USN would probably be granted licenses for future construction, as France and Italy were, but would Coolidge have spent the money?
2
-
2
-
@jamesd3472 As I read First London, it sounds like the replacement schedule as laid out in the Washington Treaty was simply deferred through 1936. The replacement sequence for the RN as laid out originally was the four Iron Dukes in 34, but First London had them scrapped without replacement. For 35, the schedule called for Tiger (which First London scrapped without replacement), QE, Warspite and Barham. For 36: Malaya and Royal Sovereign. 37: Revenge and Resolution, 38: Royal Oak. 39: Valiant and Repulse. 40: Renown. 41: Ramillies and Hood. I see things that beg questions be asked, like why Valiant would be retained for a few years after the other QEs had been scrapped. The ships are all named specifically in the text of the treaty, so the UK must have had it's reasons. So, given the scrapping sequence, and as the Iron Dukes and Tiger were already gone, the implication is the KGVs were intended to replace QE, Warspite, Barham, Malaya and Royal Sovereign.
1
-
@timengineman2nd714 The RN was not in a bind wrt tonnage after First London. With the Nelsons, the RN was at 558,950, but, when First London deleted the Iron Dukes and Tiger, that drew the RN down to 430,450, roughly 95,000t below their 525,000t limit, so they had headroom for two KGVs before firing up the cutting torch for anything. The USN came out of the treaty at 525,850t. First London deleted both Floridas and Wyoming, so the USN had 68800t of headroom, a bit short of enough for both North Carolinas. The replacement schedule for the USN isn't as scrambled as the RN's: Arkansas and both New Yorks in 35. both Nevadas in 36. both Pennsylvanias in 37. Mississippi in 38, New Mex and Idaho in 39, Tennessee in 40, California and Maryland in 41. Then First London pushing everything back 5-6 years.
1