Talk:Dutch 1913 battleship proposal

Gun supplier?
Who was going to provide the 14-inch guns? IIRC, nobody but the Americans used them, although I think that the Russians were planning to use them. Need to see more discussion of the ship itself, if at all possible. I'm fairly certain that there is a Dutch book on their ships that mentions this design that should be consulted.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 16:55, 22 November 2009 (UTC) "EOC 14 inch /45 naval gun? Also, there isn't much about the ships simply becuase there was never a definitive design; sure, proposals were submitted (one of which is featured in the infobox), but it doesn't appear that any final design was chosen (especially with Conway's comment that Germania's proposal would probably have been the one used) — Ed   (talk  •  majestic titan)  21:50, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I've found a rather excellent article describing the various designs which were proposed for these ships in some detail, and should be able to expand the 'design' section over the next few days. Nick-D (talk) 10:24, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

this article in Dutch
Incredible that there is no article in Dutch about this part of the Netherlands' history... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.79.237.18 (talk) 07:40, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

Unclear sentence thats needs explaining

 * In section, "Proposal", is the sentence "..and that competition between the major powers would mean that none of them would allow another nation to occupy either the Netherlands or the NEI".

Now, does that mean that the Dutch govt was assuming a kind of defence of the NEI "in disguise", in that any aggressor nation would be thrown out by other major powers? (This would presuppose a pacific and non-expansionist arttitude towards the NLs. I can only assume it does. In that case I would recommend expanding the sentence to clarify that. I havent checked if its cited yet. BTW Nick, thats a bit harsh to accuse me of tag bombing. I rarely and only in genuine puzzlement stick up a clarify, or any other tag. Dont make me sound like Bomber Harris eh mate? Cheers! Irondome (talk) 00:22, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
 * This is a view which was presented by non-government critics of the battleship plan. The argument was that the Netherlands and NEI were, in effect, protected by the balance of power between the major countries, as if any of them attacked Dutch territory it would spark a response from one of the other major countries (eg, if Japan attacked the NEI Britain or the US would intervene on behalf of the Dutch, or if Germany attacked the Netherlands the British would intervene). The Dutch Government doesn't seem to have agreed with this view given their willingness to order the battleships. This is covered by the reference provided (which is available online now). Sorry if you were offended by the use of 'tag bombing', but it's best to start a discussion in regards to material in FAs rather than to simply tag it and hope that the edit summary gets your message across. Nick-D (talk) 00:29, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Understood. Dunno, maybe just a few extra words to push home the idea, like "thus providing the NEI with a geo-political deterrent"?


 * Oh how many times have I questioned an opaque (to me) phrase on a relevant talk page, only to watch the dust deepen and the tumbleweeds blow. So I am doing it more, just out of sheer bloody frustration. I was just lucky interacting with a crack ed like you. Cheers! Irondome (talk) 00:41, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

"Cripple" and "Destroy" The Dutch economy and Dutch international prestige? Reflected in sources?

 * What do the sources indicate? It would seem like a terminal kick in the nuts for Holland, vis a vis the European balance, especially the German attitude. Any figures of NEI share of the Dutch economy by exports and revenue?. Van Dijk indicates that at least 1 battleship was rumoured to be financed by the NEI. This would arguably indicate the status of the NEI economy. At the mo I feel these terms are not excessive. Cheers! Irondome (talk) 01:26, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
 * This part of the article is reporting the views of a Dutch naval advocacy group, and there doesn't seem to be a need to elaborate on this or test their argument (the source also doesn't provide the details). The full text of the book is available online at the link provided, so you can check it yourself - I'd encourage you to do so. I don't think that it supports attributing such strong wording as 'cripple' and 'destroy' to this organisation. Nick-D (talk) 04:12, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Will do, and will respond here with counterarguments, if any. Also am checking for a yet wider overview on the twin subjects of economy and Dutch national and colonial self-perception via secondary sources. Will get back if anything interesting crops up to improve the article. BTW may be asking you and a couple other eds very basic questions over the next weeks. Trying to start my first ration article, as discussed. Its very scary, the first article attempt. Its so public :). Anyway, cheers as always. Irondome (talk) 04:25, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Here is an interesting paper http://net.lib.byu.edu/estu/wwi/comment/tuyll2.htm

While mostly concerned with the successful Dutch neutrality policy and Dutch intelligence in 1914, it does state some relevant points regarding the criticality of the NEI and Dutch trade to the life of the nation.

"At the very least, war could disrupt profitable overseas trade and cut the ties to the colonies in the East Indies. Worse, the country could be occupied or become a battlefield for opposing powers...Joining a coalition was not advantageous as it would guarantee disaster; a coalition with Germany meant that Britain would cut off Dutch trade, while a coalition with the Anglo French entente guaranteed German invasion. Neutrality it would have to be."

Thus it would seem that disaster, or destroy, would not be too strong terms to use here. The loss of NEI trade links implicitly mentioned above would indeed have been a "disaster" or Crippling for the Netherlands. Cheers Irondome (talk) 22:22, 9 August 2013 (UTC)
 * But this part of the article is reporting the arguments put forward by the Onze Vloot organisation on why acquiring battleships was a good idea. It's not about the Netherland's strategic situation per-se, which is outside the article's scope. That link doesn't appear to mention the battleship proposal. The article notes that the Dutch government believed that deploying battleships to the NEI was a good idea given the need to defend the islands, as well as the responses this received. Nick-D (talk) 23:07, 9 August 2013 (UTC)
 * G'day mate. You are quite correct. The original naval advocacy organisation cannot have been argued to have used terms any more extreme than those in the main article current version. The citations given would back that up. Subsequent re-examinations of the NEI's economic importance, even by the most reliable published sources are irrelevant. That is a seperate argument, although an interesting line of study. Therefore I withdraw any proposal to reword. The argument for changing the wording to describe damage to the Netherlands imperial prestige is even more tenuous and indefensible, and was deeply in synthesis-land. Brain was in neutral badly there. Cheers! Irondome (talk) 23:13, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

Pageviews
If you'd like to know how many views you get...