Talk:Argentine–Chilean naval arms race

Some ideas

Hi Ed17,

thanks for your invitation. I would like to tell you some ideas about this issue. First of all, I have never read so much about it, although I wrote the init of the article Pactos de Mayo, but actually I gathered the information for other article ,and then ...

Few days ago I read Pablo Lacoste's Argentina, Chile y los Pactos de Mayo (1902) and discovered again as a interesting theme. For "your" article I would propose:

1. Background information:
   1. the undefined boundary issues,
   2. the Ch-Ar preponderance race in South-America
   3. the Ar. fear of Brasil respective the Ch. fear of Peru-Bolivia
   4. The arms race in Europa, the German Fleet upbuild
   5. the failed attempts for a arms race control agreement in Europa
2. disproportionalness of the Ch. and Ar. Fleet regarding the number of inhabitants and economic power
3. the interest of the great powers to sell weapons
4. the first step to peace: El abrazo del Estrecho (little excurs to "El Cristo de los Andes" a monument rised at that time)
5. the Pactos de Mayo and the agreement how to stop the race, consequences
6. aftermath: the Brazilian threat

I think Lacoste goes through every of this issues, he uses a lot of figures, not easy to understand but we should do it and if neccessary we can put it in diagrams.

My policy in wikipedia is to write as less as possible (or as few as possible?). But I have some know-how in Diagramms and maps. --Best regards, Keysanger (what?) 15:45, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

I was going to get a basic summary done so it can be moved into the mainspace, but that's not a bad plan for developing it into a full article. I don't think I have the sources for all of them, though. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 20:07, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

So, I have most of the basics complete... I think. I could use help on the boundary issues (which I do not know as much about), in finding sources for the disproportional population and income of Argentina vs. Chile, and El abrazo del Estrecho, which I haven't seen mentioned in my sources. I don't think we'll need much on the fears, although we need to mention them, along with the arms race in Europe, which didn't kick off until 1898 at the earliest interpretation. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 11:23, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Torpedo boats

The table says "4" TB, but I think there were 6:

Mutilla, Contreras, Thomson and Rodríguez were built by Yarrow of Poplar (later Yarrow Shipbuilders) and transported in boxen to Valparaíso. Mutilla and Contreras were assembled by Lever, Murphy & Co Shipyard in Viña del Mar in 1898, Thomsom (later Mery) by Arsenal Naval de Talcahuano in 1900 and Rodríguez was assembled in the yard "Las Torpederas" in 1899. Videla and Hyatt were built (and assembled) in Yarrow. See Buques de la Armada construidos en Chile by Germán Bravo Valdivieso.

You can take a look to my unpublished new list under User:Keysanger/LL. --Best regards, Keysanger (what?) 16:11, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Hi, sorry, I didn't watch this page, so I didn't see your comments. Scheina says that four were ordered in 1895 and six in 1896. Do you have the right year? (just making sure!) Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 20:07, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Conway's 1860-1905 confirms this as well. Four 300 ton torpedo boats were delivered in 1896, and the other six, of 140 tons, were delivered in 1896–98. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 11:31, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

We agree, except 140t <-> 311t

• 6x=Mutilla, Contreras, Thomson, Rodríguez, Videla and Hyatt Viper class destroyer built in Yarrow. 140t. delivered 1896-98 (Viper class says the ChN)
• 4x=Muñoz Gamero, Orella, Riquelme (ren. Lientur ) and Serrano, built by Laird Brothers, delivered 1896, 311 t

Lacoste says, in Cuadro II, that Argentina bought 22 torpederas between 1880 and 1893. Do you have a reference in your books for?.

A mention of the Baring crisis should be there also. Reference: http://www.argentina-rree.com/7/7-021.htm of http://www.argentina-rree.com/historia.htm

--Best regards, Keysanger (what?) 11:39, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

I only count twenty, but twenty-two if you could the ones delivered in 1901. Lynch, Condell, Simpson, Fresia, Lauca, Quidora, [a third class torpedo boat, 1880], Sargente Aldea, No. 7, No. 8, No. 9 (all three delivered 1891), [a second class torpedo boat built 1890], Colocolo, Tucapel, Glaura, Guale, Janequeo, Rucamilla, Teguelda, Janequeo [same name, different ship, first was wrecked]. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 05:22, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

I mean Argentine torpedo boats. If we count the Chilean TBs, then we should count the Argentine also. --Best regards, Keysanger (what?) 14:42, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Oh, I see where you're going. I'll count them either later today or tomorrow. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 12:14, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

I just removed them all, actually. The torpedo boats weren't integral to the race; they were drops in a bucket compared to the heavier warships. Focusing the table on the major ships keeps the table as uncomplicated as possible, too. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 08:20, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for the rights. I will use them when necessary. --Best regards, Keysanger (what?) 11:39, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Tables

Hi Ed,

The current table contains "jumps" and it is not continuosly in the time. I think we can replace it through at the right side and the tons can be added. The new table can be read linear from top to down.

I added the table of Lacoste.

Well, the jumps are purposeful so that we don't have empty cells in the table. I thought having the flags would be enough to avoid confusion. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 05:22, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Argentine and Chilean warship purchases and orders, 1887–1902

Year	Ships (type)	Year	Ships (type)
1887	Capitán Prat (BB) Presidente Errázuriz (PC) Presidente Pinto (PC) Lynch (TB) Condell (TB)	1896	O'Higgins (AC) Six torpedo boats
1888	Libertad (BB) Independencia (BB)	1896	San Martín (AC)
1890	Veinticinco de Mayo (PC)	1897	Pueyrredón (AC)
1891	Nueve de Julio (PC)	1898	General Belgrano (AC)
1892	Blanco Encalada (PC)	1901	Rivadavia (AC) Mariano Moreno (AC)
1894	Buenos Aires (PC)	1901	Constitución (BB) Libertad (BB)
1895	Esmeralda (AC) Ministro Zenteno (PC) Four torpedo boats	1901	Announcement of plans for two battleships, never ordered
1895	Garibaldi (AC)	1901	Chacabuco (PC)
BB: pre-dreadnought battleship; PC: protected cruiser; AC: armored cruiser; TB: torpedo boat
Statistics complied from: Scheina, Naval History, 46–51, 297–299.

Argentine and Chilean warship purchases and orders, 1887–1902

Year	Shipname	tons	tons	Shipname	Year
1887	Capitán Prat (BB) P. Errázuriz (PC) P. Pinto (PC) Lynch (TB) Condell (TB)	6,900 2,080 2,080 750 750			1887
1888			2,300 2,300	Libertad (BB) Independencia (BB)	1888
1890			3,200	Veinticinco de Mayo (PC)	1890
1891			3,570	Nueve de Julio (PC)	1891
1892	Blanco Encalada (PC)	4,400			1892
1894			4,740	Buenos Aires (PC)	1894
1895	Esmeralda (AC) Ministro Zenteno (PC) Four torpedo boats	7,500 3,437	6,840	Garibaldi (AC)	1895
1896	O'Higgins (AC) Six torpedo boats	8,500	6,840	San Martín (AC)	1896
1897			6,840	Pueyrredón (AC)	1897
1898			6,840	General Belgrano (AC)	1898
1901	Constitución (BB) Libertad (BB) Chacabuco (PC)	11,800 11,800 4,160	7,800 7,800	Rivadavia (AC) Mariano Moreno (AC) Announcement of plans for two battleships, never ordered	1901
BB: pre-dreadnought battleship; PC: protected cruiser; AC: armored cruiser; TB: torpedo boat
Statistics complied from: Scheina, Naval History, 46–51, 297–299, tonnage from G. v. Rauch Conflict in the Southern Cone, p.150-154

Capacity of the Navies of Chile and Argentina in 1900

Country	Navy tons	inhabitants	kg/inh
UK	1.065.000	41.100.000	25,90
France	499.000	38.300.000	13,08
Russia	383.000	135.600.000	2,82
USA	333.000	75.900.000	4,38
Italy	245.000	32.200.000	10,34
Germany	285.000	56.000.000	5,09
Japan	187.000	43.800.000	4,26
Chile	100.000	3.000.000	33,33
Argentina	100.000	4.500.000	22,22
Austria-Hungary	87.000	46.700.000	1,86

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Argentine–Chilean naval arms race/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Khazar2 (talk · contribs) 02:46, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

I'll be glad to take this review--very interesting topic. In the next few days, I'll do a close readthrough, noting any issues here that I can't immediately fix, and then follow with the criteria checklist. Thanks in advance for your work on this one! -- Khazar2 (talk) 02:46, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Initial readthrough

On first pass, this looks extremely solid: well written, well sourced, and quite interesting to boot. Only a few quibbles:

• "The Chilean government purchased a protected cruiser, Blanco Encalada, off the stocks in 1892," -- what does it mean to buy a cruiser "off the stocks"? I assume this is a technical term with which I'm just not familiar. Perhaps an explanatory footnote could be added, or a quick explanation given in text?
  • It's complicated to explain. Basically, in those days, private shipyards would lay ships down to one of their own designs in the hope that a country in turmoil, like Argentina and Chile were, would buy it "off the stocks" or while it was under construction. Any ideas on how to succinctly phrase that in the article? Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 14:57, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
    • Hmm. How about adding a Template:efn with text like "In nautical terms, buying a ship "off the stocks" refers to buying an already-built ship from the stocks of a private shipyard." On a related subject, what does it mean to buy a ship "on the stocks", like the Venticinco de Mayo was?-- Khazar2 (talk) 15:18, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
      • They're interchangeable, but I'll make that consistent in this article. "On" seems to be the prevalent use in reliable sources. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 21:52, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
        • Germans uses the word Spekulationsbau, means something like "Built for speculation trade" [1] --Best regards, Keysanger (what?) 12:33, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
• "he notes that the small time lapse" -- consider rewording "notes" per WP:WTA
  • "Notes" isn't in WTA. ;-) I'm not saying that it's a "notable" thing (WP:WTA#Editorializing), just that the author "notes" that the small time lapse could lend itself to alternate interpretations. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 14:57, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
    • The warning about "note" is buried in the middle of WP:SAY. Looking at it again, this isn't an instance that particularly concerns me, though. -- Khazar2 (talk) 15:18, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
• Scheina, Grant -- consider giving minor context when first introducing authors ("Historian Jane Scheina", "Author Dwight Grant", etc.)
  • Ah, good call. Fixed. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 14:57, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
• "just around the corner" -- slightly informal/idiomatic; consider rewording per WP:WTA
  • Again, good call. Fixed with wording that is way better even if it wasn't idiomatic. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 14:57, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
• "and the Chilean president and foreign minister." -- it seems worth naming and linking the specific president involved here.
  • Linked Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 14:57, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
• " leaving the de facto state of war they were in" -- It doesn't sound like any shots were fired, which is what I would think of as a de facto war; I'm a bit skeptical of this phrase.
  • Agreed -- fixed. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 14:57, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
• Some of the footnoting appears to be by paragraph rather than sentence, which gets confusing when a paragraph draws on multiple sources. I don't think this is a big deal for GA, but if you're considering taking this to A-class or FA, it would be good to be more specific about what source and page some of these facts (particularly numerical figures) are coming from.
  • Typically I will do by sentence, but if a paragraph is fully taken from two or more sources (ie most of the sentences depend on both sources), I'll do it by paragraph. Thanks though, I'll keep it in mind when I spruce it up (not sure if I'll go to ACR or FAC yet; I'd need to find more sources) Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 14:57, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

All this looks good. Some small points above could still be addressed, but I'd say this article is ready to pass as a Good Article. Since we've given this unusually quick turnaround between nomination, review, and response, I'd like to wait another 48 hours before passing it just to make sure that anyone else watching this article has had a chance to chime in, give a last check, etc. Unless anyone speaks up, though, I think this is good to go. -- Khazar2 (talk) 15:18, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks! I just moved this into the mainspace, so I don't think there are many watchers, but I'm not in any hurry. :-) Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 21:52, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Checklist

Rate	Attribute	Review Comment
1. Well-written:
	1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.
2. Verifiable with no original research:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.
	2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose).
	2c. it contains no original research.
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
	6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.
	7. Overall assessment.	Pass.

Comments

Hi Ed,

I read your work and found it very well. I want to collaborate with following:

• By the beginning of the 1880s, the Chilean government possessed possibly the strongest navy in the Americas ...

It should be said in the sentence that at this moment Chile was in war against Peru and Bolivia. This is a good argumennt to have a strong navy

• Two battleships, Los Andes and La Plata, were ordered from Laird Brothers ...

Los Andes and La Plata weren't Battleships. They were fluvial monitors. See es.Wk

• An Argentine warship did the same to a Chilean-licensed American ship in 1877

I never heard of it. Can you give some reference?

• Each government was distracted in the next few years

I am not sure of my English, but I think the word distracted distracts the attention from the facts. They were very interested in the questions regarding beyond the Cordillera: the "Conquest of the Desert" was done during the "War of the Pacific" and because the Chileans were at war against Peru und Bolivia. 1873 the Argentine Senat authorized the President to sign the Secret Treaty of Peru and Bolivia against Chile. I would prefer the former wording Both countries were incapable of enforcing these claims with a seaborne force ...

• 1) one battleship, two protected cruisers, and two [Chilean] torpedo gunboats... 2) ... two [Chilean] torpedo boats from the United Kingdom ..., 3) ...along with four [Chilean] torpedo boats;..., 4) ...and six [Chilean] torpedo boats...

We should count on both sides or no one of them

• 1) a large order for rifles, field guns, sabers, and carbines, enough to arm an 80,000-strong [Chilean] army ... 2) Chile, it was forced to take out a £2 million pound loan in order to purchase Krupp weaponry ...,

We should count on both sides or no one of them

The article could contains also data about the construction of the Marine Yards in Argentina and Chile. As soon as possible I will contribute with some figures. --Best regards, Keysanger (what?) 13:19, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

Missing info

There's no info on the circumstances and timing of the order for the two cruisers eventually acquired by Japan. Specifically was it before or after the orders for the two Swiftsures? And when did Argentina sell them to Japan?--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 04:37, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

Argentine ships Independencia and Libertad

Argentine ships Independencia and Libertad should not be considered in the Argentine-Chilean naval arms race. They were coastal defense ships, not ocean ships, which could not have been acquired in response to Chile, but to Brazil, which also had such ships. --Muwatallis II (talk) 06:09, 4 July 2020 (UTC)