‘Are We Ready?’ The Development of American and British Naval Strategy, 1922–39

  • Malcolm H. Murfett
Part of the St Antony's book series


Despite the momentous nature of the event, or perhaps because of it, the Washington Conference aroused strong emotions among naval men on both sides of the Atlantic. Many felt that it had managed to create more problems than it had solved. Apart from the dark mutterings about it being a bad bargain that ought not to have been accepted, opponents of the treaties claimed to find sufficient evidence, either in the decisions reached or those postponed, to regard the whole affair with serious misgivings.


Foreign Policy Pearl Harbor American Foreign Policy Offensive Strategy Naval Base 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    ‘Are We Ready?’ was the title given to a survey conducted by the General Board of the US Navy on 8 August 1939, classified as General Board 425, Serial 1868, cited by J. Major, ‘The Navy Plans for War 1937–1941’ in K. J. Hagan (ed.), In Peace and War: Interpretations of American Naval History 1775–1978 (Westport, Conn., 1984) p. 247.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    A. T. Mahan, Naval Strategy (Westport, Conn., 1975) p. 20.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    L. H. Douglas, ‘Robert Edward Coontz’ in R. W. Love Jr (ed.), The Chiefs of Naval Operations (Annapolis, Md, 1980) pp. 23–6.Google Scholar
  4. 5.
    M. Vlahos, The Blue Sword: The Naval War College and the American Mission 1919–1941 (Newport, RI, 1980) pp. 99–112Google Scholar
  5. W. R. Braisted, ‘On the American Red and Red-Orange Plans, 1919–1939’, in G. Jordan (ed.), Naval Warface in the Twentieth Century (London, 1977) pp. 167–85.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Ibid. For an entirely different interpretation, see L. Morton, Strategy and Command: The First Two Years (Washington, DC, 1962) pp. 31–3.Google Scholar
  7. 8.
    T. H. Buckley, The United States and the Washington Conference (Knoxville, Tenn., 1970)Google Scholar
  8. R. Dingman, Power in the Pacific (Chicago, 1976)Google Scholar
  9. G. E. Wheeler, Prelude to Pearl Harbor (Columbia, Miss., 1963).Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Ibid; P. E. Coletta, The American Naval Heritage in Brief (Washington, DC, 1980) pp. 302–3.Google Scholar
  11. 17.
    S. W. Roskill, Naval Policy Between the Wars, vol. I (London, 1968) pp. 498–516; Wheeler, Prelude to Pearl Harbor, pp. 131–57.Google Scholar
  12. 23.
    D. Marquand, Ramsay MacDonald (London, 1977) pp. 501–17.Google Scholar
  13. S. W. Roskill, Naval Policy Between the Wars, vol. II (London, 1976) pp. 30–66.Google Scholar
  14. R. H. Ferrell, American Diplomacy in the Great Depression (London, 1957) pp. 68–105.Google Scholar
  15. 26.
    L. Morton, ‘War Plan ORANGE: Evolution of a Strategy’, World Politics 11 (1959), 221–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 27.
    M. Matloffand E. Snell, Strategic Planning for Coalition Warfare 1941–1942 (Washington, DC, 1953) pp. 1–8.Google Scholar
  17. 32.
    L. Morton, ‘Germany First: The Basic Concept of Allied Strategy in World War if’, in K. R. Greenfield, Command Decisions (Washington, DC, 1960) pp. 11–47.Google Scholar
  18. 35.
    R. Dallek, Franklin D. Roosevelt and American Foreign Policy 1932–1945 (New York, 1979) p. 148.Google Scholar
  19. 39.
    P. Abbazia, Mr. Roosevelt’s Navy (Annapolis, Md, 1975) pp. 119–23.Google Scholar
  20. 42.
    See, for instance, P. Beesly, Very Special dmiral(London, 1980), p. 63. Undoubtedly the fact that several Directors of Plans died without leaving any personal papers has complicated this issue, for example, Pound, Danckwerts, Tom Phillips.Google Scholar
  21. 44.
    M. Gilbert, Winston Churchill, vol. v, 1922–1939 (London, 1976) pp. 289–92.Google Scholar
  22. 45.
    Gibbs, ‘The Naval Conferences of the Inter War Years: A Study of Anglo-American Relations’, Naval War College Review 30 (1977) 50–63.Google Scholar
  23. 47.
    D. N. Dilks, ‘Appeasement Revisited’, The University of Leeds Review 15 (1972) 28–56.Google Scholar
  24. 51.
    The extent to which the Treasury influenced government expenditure on defence and foreign policy is best described by G. C. Peden in his excellent book British Rearmament and the Treasury 1932–1938 (Edinburgh, 1979).Google Scholar
  25. 58.
    The Italian dimension in British strategy is well covered by L. R. Pratt, East of Malta, West of Suez (Cambridge, 1975)Google Scholar
  26. 60.
    M. H. Murfett, Fool-proof Relations: The Search for Anglo-American Naval Cooperation During the Chamberlain Years 1937–1940 (Singapore, 1984) pp. 5–9, 11, 16, 19, 29, 166, 169–72.Google Scholar
  27. 79.
    An interesting account of the development of the Fleet Air Arm and a revealing comparison of the stages of its growth in comparison with that of its American equivalent is offered by G. Till in his book, Air Power and the Royal Navy 1914–1945 (London, 1979).Google Scholar
  28. 80.
    The pioneering work of Rear-Admiral W. A. Moffett, Chief of the Bureau of Aeronautics, is best described by J. J. Clark in his book, Carrier Admiral (New York, 1967)Google Scholar
  29. and the early phase of carrier development is most persuasively discussed by C. M. Melhorn, Two-Block Fox: The Rise of the Aircraft Carrier 1911–29 (Annapolis, 1974).Google Scholar

Copyright information

© John B. Hattendorf and Robert S. Jordan 1989

Authors and Affiliations

  • Malcolm H. Murfett

There are no affiliations available

Personalised recommendations