The Rise of Australasia

The naval proportions proposed by various countries were fundamentally based on their own interests, even the naval proportion of Australasia, which was actually a proposal aimed at strengthening itself, the United Kingdom, and France while maintaining the gap between the United Kingdom and the United States, as well as the gap between Australasia and the island nation.

Although each country was well aware that the proportions they proposed were unreasonable, they involved their own national interests. These diplomats may not have any other advantages, but their thick skin prevented them from making the slightest concession.

As a result, the talks lasted for more than half a month. Eventually, the United Kingdom and the United States made a threat to intimidate the island nation that refused to compromise on naval proportions: "For every capital warship built by the island nation, the United Kingdom and the United States will build four."

Your journey continues at empire

Such a threat was not an exaggeration. The United Kingdom’s investment in the navy was huge and could maintain an advantage over Germany’s navy, let alone a small island nation.

The island nation’s development was sponsored by the United States at present, so it was almost impossible for it to compete with the United States in terms of funding.

After resolving the island nation’s dispute, the most important issue now was the naval proportion of the United States and the United Kingdom.

In this controversial issue, the United States and the island nation supported an equal proportion for the United States and the United Kingdom, while the United Kingdom and Australasia advocated a slightly higher proportion for the United Kingdom.

This made France’s opinion in the upcoming negotiations very important. Various countries began to rally for France’s support and proposed their own terms.

At this point, the British representative approached the French representative, trying to win his support.

After sipping a bit of fine French red wine, the British representative Thomas smiled and said: "Mr. Tirek, the British Empire needs your country’s support. In the interest of British-French friendship, please do not hesitate to help."

French representative Tirek did not directly respond but changed the subject: "The British Empire is the most powerful country in the world, capable of easily resolving major crises like the Irish War of Independence. Why would it need France’s help?"

Undoubtedly, Tirek was only interested in what terms Thomas could offer, and he scoffed at the so-called British-French friendship mentioned by Thomas.

Although Britain and France indeed cooperated closely during World War I, the periods of friendly relations between them in history were much fewer than those of war. The British-French relationship may not be much better than that between France and Germany.

Compared to the British-French relationship, perhaps the French-American relationship was more intimate. After all, France had played a significant role in the United States’ independence. Without France’s support, the 13 American colonies would not have been a match for Britain at the time.

If the relationship between the British Empire and Australasia can be compared to that of mother and child, then the relationship between France and the United States can be compared to that of father and son, only that the Americans do not acknowledge it.

"France is still powerful. I believe that the Moroccan crisis will be resolved soon as well. Mrs. Riv may be able to withstand the attack of the Spanish army, but she can’t withstand the attack of the French army," the British representative Thomas said with a smile.

Although Thomas, an experienced diplomat, did not make an explicit promise, he and Tirek naturally understood the implications of this statement.

It would be more accurate to say that the British Empire supported France in resolving the Moroccan crisis than to say that it had faith in France’s ability to resolve the crisis quickly.

This was also one of the conditions offered by the United Kingdom, backing France’s swift resolution of the Moroccan crisis and avoiding a war of attrition.

"Mr. Thomas, as you know, France is one of the most powerful countries in the world and deserves a larger share of the naval proportions. Considering the damage France has suffered, we agree to the same proportion as Australasia, but we will never allow the island nation’s proportion to exceed or be equal to that of France," Tirek said with a smile, stating his second condition.

Before World War I, France was a top power, but now it lagged behind the United States and the United Kingdom.

In this naval proportion allocation, in addition to fighting for their own interests, all countries were also fighting for a bit of face.

If the French proportion was equal to that of the island nation, how would the millions of French people feel? An island nation that was a backward country just decades ago would soon be on top of France. Was this not an insult to the European hegemon, France? ŗΆΝÒ₿ЁŚ

Especially after World War I, the French felt that their country had become the most powerful in mainland Europe and could not tolerate having a lower proportion than the island nation.

As for Australasia, though it was also a country that had risen within a short time, its population was mostly composed of Europeans, so it was not so shameful to be pursued by Europeans.

Moreover, while the United States and the island nation did not support France’s naval proportion exceeding the island nation, the proportion proposed by Australasia did have France surpassing the island nation.

Comparing the two, it is clear which side is more in line with France’s interests, and the French naturally did not mind banding together with Australasia for warmth.

"Ah, of course. Even without considering other factors, France is the most powerful country in continental Europe and should have a naval proportion far surpassing that of the island nation. Europe is still the most developed region in the world, and a barbaric country like the island nation has no right to be compared with us," Thomas nodded, agreeing to France’s proposal.

If France supports the United Kingdom, the naval proportions of the five countries would be: United Kingdom＞United States＞France=Australasia＞island nation.

Even if France’s naval proportion is increased, it would not pose a threat to the United Kingdom’s naval dominance.

On the contrary, France’s support for the United Kingdom would make the island nation’s naval proportion the lowest among the countries, which would naturally incur the island nation’s resentment.

Having France stand against the island nation is tantamount to standing against the United States, which is beneficial to the strategic interests of the United Kingdom.

Amid the casual conversation of the two representatives, a naval tonnage ratio that would determine the world’s situation was also being settled.

At the meeting the next day, France, unexpectedly, openly supported the proposal of the United Kingdom and Australasia.

This caught the United States and the island nation off guard, and they ultimately had no choice but to make further compromises in their disadvantaged situation.

Eventually, after more than a month, a preliminary framework for the naval scale ratio of the five countries was established.

The United Kingdom obtained a slight advantage over the United States, with the tonnage limit of its main battleships set at 600,000 tons.

The United States followed closely behind, with the tonnage limit of its main battleships restricted to 550,000 tons.

Next were France and Australasia, each having 350,000 tons of main battleship tonnage.

The least was the ambitious island nation, with its main battleship tonnage limited to 300,000 tons. However, the gap with France and Australasia was not too great.

This was also the result of mutual compromise. While the United Kingdom maintained an advantage over the United States, and Australasia and France over the island nation, the advantage was limited to 50,000 tons, equivalent to the tonnage of a main battleship.

With only a difference of one main battleship, the gap in naval strength was not so overwhelming, and there was still hope for a turnaround.

After determining the naval ratios of these five important countries, only Italy’s naval allocation remained.

The Italian government made outrageous demands, directly asking for 350,000 tons, and naturally, was jointly rejected by the five countries.

Joking aside, such naval tonnage was the result of more than a month of negotiations and compromise among the five most powerful nations, and naturally could not be shaken by a country like Italy.

After some bargaining, Italy’s naval tonnage was limited to 175,000 tons, which directly cut Italian demands in half, reflecting the dominance of the five countries joining forces.

With Italy’s naval tonnage included, the naval tonnage of these six countries determined the naval tonnage of the world.

Because other countries could no longer pose a threat to these countries in terms of naval power, Germany and Austria-Hungary were restricted in their naval development, and Russia was preoccupied with internal wars, leaving no time for naval development, and therefore it was not necessary to impose corresponding limitations.

However, this did not mean that the naval limitation treaty had been officially reached.

Beyond the limitation on the main battleships, various auxiliary warships, including submarines, became the focus of the following discussions.

Due to the impact of World War I, the British were wary of submarines from other countries.

This was no joke. During World War I, elusive German submarines had caused considerable trouble for British warships and merchant ships, leaving a deep impression on the British navy.

But it was clear that other countries had differing opinions on the development of submarines.

Submarines could pose a significant threat to some warships and were the only means of resistance for weaker naval countries against stronger ones.

If the development of submarines is prohibited, it would be tantamount to extinguishing weaker naval states’ hope of resisting stronger ones, which many countries would not like to see.

Especially the island nation, whose naval scale was already the lowest among all countries, naturally disagreed with the British proposal to completely ban the development of naval submarines.

This led the initially expected swift conclusion of the naval limitations treaty to stall. The negotiation of medium and small warships and submarines could not be completed without several months of effort.

For Australasia, this was actually good news. The construction of the three R108 battleships was nearing completion, and they were expected to be completed and officially tested in the water within half a year.

As long as the treaty could be delayed for another half year, the three battleships of Australasia could be completed before the signing of the naval limitation treaty, without violating the treaty.

Following Arthur’s instructions, Australasia’s diplomatic representatives joined the debate about medium and small warships and submarines and tried their best to muddy the waters, prolonging disputes among countries.

The good news was that the discussions on the maximum standard displacement of a single main battleship and the total tonnage limit of aircraft carriers would further delay the reaching of the naval limitation treaty, not only meeting Arthur’s requirements but perhaps also exceeding expectations.

However, there was still a supplementary treaty that was quickly confirmed.

This supplementary treaty had nothing to do with the size of the navies of the countries involved but dealt with fortresses on the islands occupied by the countries in the Pacific.

According to the provisions, apart from the legal territories of the countries, the construction of new naval bases and fortresses on other Pacific islands was not allowed, reducing conflicts and contradictions among countries in the Pacific region.

This was good news for Australasia, as the partition of its military districts had already been completed and naval bases had been built. This supplementary treaty had no impact on them.

Visit and read more novel to help us update chapter quickly. Thank you so much!