South American dreadnought race
A naval arms race among Argentina, Brazil and Chile—the most powerful and wealthy countries in South America—began in the early twentieth century when the Brazilian government ordered three "dreadnoughts", powerful battleships whose capabilities far outstripped older vessels in the world's navies.
Previous Argentine–Chilean naval races from 1887 to 1902, along with the fall of the Brazilian emperor Pedro II in 1889 and subsequent naval rebellions in 1891 and 1893–94, left the Brazilian Navy well behind the Argentine and Chilean navies in quality and total tonnage. When Brazil was finally stable, rising demand for coffee and rubber brought its government a large increase in revenue. Brazilian politicians planned to use this money to address the naval imbalance, as they believed that acquiring a powerful navy would play an essential role in their goal of making the country into an international power. Three small battleships were ordered in late 1905, but the impact of the decisive Battle of Tsushima and the appearance of the revolutionary British warship HMS Dreadnought caused the Brazilian government to cancel their vessels in favor of the new "dreadnought" battleship.[B] Construction on two Minas Geraes-class ships began quickly with a third to follow. As other countries joined into what quickly became an international dreadnought race, the vessels became a measure of a state's international prestige—similar to nuclear weapons today. As the Brazilian order positioned the country as the third to have a dreadnought under construction, the action caused a major stir among the world's perceived powers.
The Argentine and Chilean governments immediately canceled a pact limiting their navies and ordered two dreadnoughts each (the Rivadavia and Almirante Latorre classes, respectively). Meanwhile, Brazil's third dreadnought was canceled in favor of an even larger ship, which was laid down and ripped up several times after repeated alterations to the design. When the Brazilian government finally settled on a design, the coffee and rubber economic booms collapsed, and their ship would be outclassed by larger super-dreadnoughts already being built, so they sold the ship, preliminarily named Rio de Janeiro, to the Ottoman Empire. They attempted to acquire a more powerful vessel, Riachuelo, from British shipbuilders, but the beginning of the First World War caused them to suspend work on foreign warships, effectively canceling the ship. The conflict also induced the British government to purchase the two Chilean battleships before they were delivered. Argentina's two dreadnoughts, built in the neutral United States, were handed over in 1915.
The First World War marked the end of the dreadnought race, as the South American countries stopped ordering the warship type. In subsequent decades, all three countries proposed naval expansion plans, some involving dreadnought purchases. While most did not come to fruition, the Chilean government reacquired one of the dreadnoughts (Almirante Latorre) taken over by the United Kingdom before the war. No other dreadnoughts were purchased by a South American nation, and the ones they did acquire were disposed of in the 1950s.
- 1 Background: naval rivalry, revolts, and export crops
- 2 Catalyst: Brazil's opening salvo
- 3 Counter: Argentina and Chile respond
- 4 Results: construction and trials of the new warships
- 5 Reciprocation: Brazil orders again
- 6 Decline: instability and public unrest
- 7 Aftermath: post-war expansions
- 8 Historiography
- 9 Ships involved
- 10 Footnotes
- 11 Endnotes
- 12 References
Argentine–Chilean arms race
|1888||1896||San Martín (AC)|
|1890||Veinticinco de Mayo (PC)||1897||
Nueve de Julio (PC)
General Belgrano (AC)
|1892||Blanco Encalada (PC)||1901|
|1894||Buenos Aires (PC)||1901|
Statistics complied from: Scheina, Naval History, 46–51, 297–299.
Conflicting Argentine and Chilean claims to Patagonia, the southernmost region in South America, had been causing tension between the two countries since the 1840s. This tension was heightened in 1872 and 1878, when Chilean warships seized merchant ships which had been licensed to operate in the disputed area by the Argentine government. An Argentine warship did the same to a Chilean-licensed American ship in 1877. This action nearly led to war in November 1878, when the Argentines dispatched a squadron of warships to the Santa Cruz River. The Chilean Navy responded in kind, and war was only avoided by a hastily signed treaty. Each government was distracted in the next few years, Argentina's with intensified military operations against the indigenous population (1870–84), and Chile's with the War of the Pacific (Guerra del Pacífico, 1879–83) against Bolivia and Peru. Still, several warships were ordered by both nations: the Chileans ordered a protected cruiser, Esmeralda, while the Argentines contracted for two warships, the central battery ironclad Almirante Brown and protected cruiser Patagonia.
In 1887, the Chilean government added £3,129,500 to the budget for its fleet, whose fleet was still centered around two aging central battery ironclads, Almirante Cochrane and Blanco Encalada, from the 1870s. They ordered the battleship Capitán Prat, two protected cruisers, and two torpedo boats; their keels were laid in 1890. The Argentine government quickly responded with an order for two battleships, Independencia and Libertad, beginning a naval arms race between the two countries. It continued through the 1890s, even after the expensive Chilean Civil War (1891). The two countries alternated cruiser orders between 1890 and 1895, each marking a small increase in capabilities from the ship previous. Argentina escalated the race in July 1895 by buying an armored cruiser, Garibaldi, from Italy. Chile responded by ordering its own armored cruiser, O'Higgins, and six torpedo boats; the Argentine government quickly ordered another armored cruiser from the Italian engineering company Ansaldo, and later ordered two more.
The race slowed for a few years after a boundary dispute in the Puna de Atacama region was successfully mediated in 1899 by the American ambassador to Argentina, William Paine Lord, but more ships were ordered by both countries in 1901. The Argentine Navy bought two more armored cruisers from Italy, and the Chilean Navy replied with orders for two Constitución-class pre-dreadnought battleships from British shipyards. The Argentines replied by signing letters of intent with Ansaldo in May 1901 to buy two larger battleships.
The growing dispute disturbed members of the British government, as war looked like a very real possibility, and an armed conflict would disrupt the extensive British commercial interests in the area. Argentina and Chile both imported British-made goods, while the United Kingdom imported large amounts of Argentine grain, most shipped through the River Plate, and Chilean nitrates. The British government mediated negotiations between the two countries through their envoy in Chile. These were successfully concluded on 28 May 1902 with three pacts. The third limited the naval armaments of both countries; both were barred from acquiring any further warships for five years without giving the other eighteen months' advance notice. The warships under construction were sold to the United Kingdom, with Chile's battleships becoming the Swiftsure class, and Japan, with Argentina's armored cruisers becoming the Kasuga class. It is not clear if the two planned Argentine battleships were ordered, but in any case the plans were quickly scuttled. Garibaldi and Pueyrredón, along with Chile's Capitán Prat, were disarmed with the exception of their main batteries, as there was no crane capable of removing the former's gun turrets.
Brazilian decline and re-emergence
Brazil's navy fell into disrepair and obsolescence after an 1889 revolution, which deposed Emperor Dom Pedro II, two naval revolts (1891 and 1893–94), the Federalist Revolution (1893–95), and the War of Canudos (1896–97).[C] The navy had just forty-five percent of its authorized personnel in 1896, and the only modern armored ships were two small coast-defense vessels launched in 1898. With such dilapidated defenses, José Paranhos Jr., the Baron of Rio Branco and Foreign Minister of Brazil, stated "In such conditions, you ... understand how upset I am and all the worries I have. All that still protects [Brazil] is the moral force and old prestige still left from [the Imperial era] when there was still foresight in this land..."[D]
Meanwhile, although the Argentine–Chilean agreement had limited their naval expansion, they still retained the numerous vessels built in the interim, so by the turn of the 20th century the Brazilian Navy lagged far behind its Argentine and Chilean counterparts in quality and total tonnage. Brazil's huge advantage in population—it had almost three times the population of Argentina, close to five times that of Chile, and nearly double of the two combined—led the Brazilian government to believe that it should assume a leading role in naval affairs on the continent.[E]
The late nineteenth and early twentieth century demand for coffee and rubber led to Brazil's so-called "coffee economy" and "rubber boom." At the time, it was estimated that seventy-five to eighty percent of the world's coffee supply was grown in Brazil, particularly in São Paulo, Minas Geraes, and Rio de Janeiro. The resulting profits meant that the Brazilian government collected much more revenue than in previous years. Simultaneously, there was an effort on the part of prominent Brazilian politicians, most notably Pinheiro Machado and Rio Branco, to have the country recognized as an international power. A strong navy was seen as crucial to this goal.
The National Congress of Brazil passed a large naval acquisition program on 14 December 1904, but it was two years before any ships were ordered or purchased, and while Rio Branco suggested purchasing used warships to fill the gap, nothing came of it. By 1906, two factions had developed over which types of ships should be ordered. One, supported by the British armament company Armstrong Whitworth (which eventually received the order), favored a navy centered around a small number of large warships. The other, supported by Rio Branco, preferred a larger navy composed of smaller warships. Rio Branco, in support of this measure, stated that "with six small battleships we would be much better. If we lost one or two in combat, there would be still four or five left to fight with. But with three [larger battleships]? With two damaged or destroyed, we would be left with one only."
At first, the smaller warships faction prevailed. After Law no. 1452 was passed on 30 December 1905, which authorized £4,214,550 for new warship construction (£1,685,820 in 1906), three small battleships, three armored cruisers, six destroyers, twelve torpedo boats, three submarines, a collier, and a training ship were ordered. Though the Brazilian government later eliminated the armored cruisers for monetary reasons, the Minister of the Navy, Admiral Júlio César de Noronha, signed a contract with Armstrong Whitworth for the planned battleships on 23 July 1906.
The British ambassador to Brazil was opposed to the planned naval expansion, even though the orders went to a British company, for its large cost and its negative effects on relations between Brazil and Argentina. He saw it as "an embodiment of national vanity, combined with personal motives of a pecuniary character." The American ambassador to Brazil was alarmed, and sent a cablegram to his Department of State in September 1906, warning them of the destabilization that would occur if the situation devolved into a full naval arms race. At the same time, the American government under Theodore Roosevelt tried using diplomatic means to coerce the Brazilians into canceling their ships, but the attempts were dismissed, with the Baron of Rio Branco remarking that caving to the American demands would render Brazil as powerless as Cuba, whose new constitution allowed the American government to intervene in Cuban affairs. The new President of Brazil, Afonso Pena, supported the naval acquisitions in an address to the National Congress of Brazil in November 1906, as in his opinion the ships were necessary to replace the losses recently suffered by the navy, most notably the old Aquidabã, and the antiquated vessels of the current navy.
Catalyst: Brazil's opening salvo
After construction began on Brazil's three new small battleships, the Brazilian government reconsidered their order and chosen battleship design (something that would happen several more times during the construction of Rio de Janeiro in 1913). This was wrought by the impact of the Battle of Tsushima, which led navies to believe that larger guns were necessary, and the debut of the United Kingdom's new dreadnought concept, represented by the surprisingly fast construction and commissioning of the eponymous ship in 1906, rendered the Brazilian ships obsolete before they were completed.
The money authorized for naval expansion in 1905 was redirected to building three dreadnoughts (with the third to be laid down after the first was launched), three scout cruisers (later reduced to two, which became the Bahia class), fifteen destroyers (later reduced to ten, the Pará class), three submarines (the F 1 class), and two submarine tenders (later reduced to one, Ceara). This move was made with the large-scale support of Brazilian politicians, including Pinheiro Machado and a nearly unanimous vote in the Senate; the navy, now with a large-ship advocate, Rear Admiral Alexandrino Fario de Alencar, in the powerful post of minister of the navy; and the Brazilian press. Still, these changes were made with the stipulation that the total price of the new naval program not exceed the original limit, so the increase in battleship tonnage was bought with the previous elimination of armored cruisers and decreasing the number of destroyer-type warships. The three battleships on which construction had begun were scrapped beginning on 7 January 1907, and the design for the new dreadnoughts was approved on 20 February. Newspapers began covering a Brazilian order for dreadnoughts in March, while the full order, including all three dreadnoughts and the two cruisers, was widely reported beginning in August.
The Brazilian order for what contemporary commentators called "the most powerful battleship[s] in the world" came at a time when few countries in the world had contracted for such armament. Brazil was the third country to have a dreadnought under construction, behind the United Kingdom, with Dreadnought and the Bellerophon class, and the United States, with the South Carolina class. This meant that Brazil was in line to have a dreadnought before many of the world's perceived powers, like France, the German Empire, the Russian Empire, and the Empire of Japan.[F] As dreadnoughts were quickly equated with international status, somewhat similar to nuclear weapons today—that is, regardless of a state's need for such equipment, simply ordering and possessing a dreadnought increased the owner's prestige—the order caused a major stir in international relations.
Newspapers and journals around the world speculated that Brazil was acting as a proxy for a naval power which would take possession of the two dreadnoughts soon after completion, as they did not believe that a previously insignificant geopolitical power would contract for such powerful armament. Many American, British, and German sources variously accused the Americans, British, German, or Japanese governments of secretly plotting to purchase the vessels.[G] The World's Work remarked:
The question that is puzzling diplomats the world over is why Brazil should want ferocious leviathans of such size and armament and speed as to place them ten to fifteen years in advance of any other nation besides Great Britain. ... Although Brazil has denied that these are meant for England or Japan, naval men of all nations suspect that they are meant for some government other than Brazil's.[H] In the event of war, the government which would first be able to secure these vessels ... would immediately place the odds of naval supremacy in its favor. England, no matter how many Dreadnoughts she has, would be compelled to buy them to keep them from some lesser power. They bring a new question into international politics. They may be leaders of a great fleet which minor government are said to be preparing to build; or, to put it more accurately, to stand sponsors for. Some Machiavellian hand may be at work in this new game of international politics and the British Admiralty is suspected. But every statesmen and naval student may make his own guess. (" ," World's Work 17, no. 1 : 10867–68)
On the other side of the Atlantic, in the midst of the Anglo–German naval arms race, members of the British House of Commons fretted over the battleships' possible destinations, though the Admiralty consistently stated that they did not believe any sale would occur. In mid-July and September 1908, the Commons discussed purchasing the ships to bolster the Royal Navy and ensure they would not be sold to a foreign rival, which would disrupt the British naval plan set in place by the "two-power standard", though in March and late July 1908, the Brazilian government officially denied any sale was planned. In March 1909, the British press and House of Commons began pushing for more dreadnoughts after the First Lord of the Admiralty, Reginald McKenna, asserted that Germany had stepped up its building schedule and would complete thirteen dreadnoughts in 1911—four more than previously estimated. Naturally, the subject of purchasing the Brazilian dreadnoughts already being built was brought up, and McKenna had to officially deny that the government was planning to tender an offer for the warships. He also stated that a sale to a foreign power would be inconsequential, as "our present superiority in strength in 1909–10 is so great that no alarm would be created in the mind of the Board of Admiralty."
Despite the plethora of rumors, the Brazilian government was not planning to sell their ships. Dreadnoughts formed an important role in Rio Branco's goal of raising Brazil to an international power, as the New York Evening Mail correctly surmised:
Brazil begins to feel the importance of her great position, the part she may play in the world, and is taking measures in a beginner's degree commensurate with that realization. Her battle-ship-building is one with her attitude at The Hague, and these together are but part and parcel, not of a vainglorious striving after position, but of a just conception of her future. Dr. Ruy Barboza did not oppose the details of representation on the international arbitral tribunal out of antipathy to the United States, but because he believed that the sovereignty of Brazil was at least equal to that of any other sovereign nation, and because he was convinced that unequal representation on that tribunal would result in the establishment of 'categories of sovereignty'—a thing utterly opposed to the philosophy of equal sovereign rights.[I] And as in international law and discourse, so in her navy, Brazil seeks to demonstrate her sovereign rank. (New York Evening Mail quoted in " ," Literary Digest 37, no. 4 : 103)
Counter: Argentina and Chile respond
Argentina was highly alarmed by the Brazilian move, and they quickly moved to nullify the remaining months of the naval-limiting restrictions in the 1902 pact with Chile. In November 1906, Argentina's Minister of Foreign Affairs, Manuel Augusto Montes de Oca, remarked that any one of the new Brazilian vessels could destroy the entire Argentine and Chilean fleets. Despite the seeming hyperbole, his statement—made before the Brazilian government reordered the ships as dreadnoughts—ended up being relatively accurate: in 1910, at least, the new Brazilian warships were much more powerful than any other vessel in the world, let alone any one ship in the Argentine or Chilean fleets.
The Argentine government's alarm continued under de Oca's successor, Estanisláo Zeballos. In June 1908, Zeballos presented a plan to the Argentine Congress where they would offer the Brazilian government a chance to give one of their two unfinished dreadnoughts to Argentina. This would allow the two countries a chance to enjoy relative naval parity. Should the Brazilians refuse, Zeballos planned to issue an ultimatum: if they did not comply in eight days, the mobilized Argentine Army would invade what the army and navy ministers claimed was a defenseless Rio de Janeiro. Unfortunately for Zeballos, his plan was leaked to the media, and the resulting public outcry—Argentine citizens happened to not be in favor of their government borrowing large sums of money to mobilize the army and go to war—ensured his resignation.[J]
The Argentine government was also deeply concerned with the possible effect on the country's large export trade, as a Brazilian blockade of the entrance to the River Plate would cripple the Argentine economy. The acquisition of dreadnoughts to maintain an equal footing with Brazil would, in the words of the Argentine admiral overseeing his countries' dreadnoughts while they were being constructed, avoid a "preponderance of power on the other side, where a sudden gust of popular feeling or injured pride might make [a blockade] a dangerous weapon against us."
Both countries faced difficulty in financing their own dreadnoughts. Although in Argentina the ruling National Autonomist Party supported the purchases, they initially faced public resistance for such expensive acquisitions. An influx of inflammatory newspaper editorials supporting new dreadnoughts, especially from La Prensa, and renewed border disputes, particularly Brazilian assertions that the Argentines were attempting to restore the Viceroyalty of the Río de la Plata, swayed the public to support the purchases. The Argentine President, José Figueroa Alcorta, attempted to ease the tensions with a message warning the Brazilians of a naval arms race should they continue on their present course. The Brazilian government replied with reasoning similar to Pena's speech in 1906, in that they believed the ships were necessary to replace the antiquated equipment left by the long-term neglect of the Brazilian Navy, and they repeatedly insisted that the ships were not meant for use against Argentina.
In August, a bill authorizing the Argentine Navy to acquire three dreadnoughts was passed by the Chamber of Deputies seventy-two to thirteen. Three months later, it was defeated in the Senate after they approved an arbitration treaty and the government made a last-ditch offer to purchase one of the two Brazilian dreadnoughts currently being constructed. The Brazilian government declined, so the bill was reintroduced and passed by the Senate on 17 December 1908 with forty-nine in support to thirteen opposed, over socialist objections that the country needed to be populated and the large sum of money (£14,000,000) could be better spent in other areas of the government.
After the Argentine government sent a naval delegation to Europe to solicit and evaluate armament companies' offers, they received tenders from fifteen shipyards in five countries (the United States, Great Britain, Germany, France, and Italy), and conducted a drawn-out bidding process. The Argentine delegation rejected all of the bids twice, each time recycling the best technical aspects of the tendered designs when crafting new bidding requirements. The reason given for the first rejection was the appearance of the first super-dreadnought, HMS Orion. Still, the shipbuilders were furious, as the process of designing a major warship took large amounts of time and money, and they believed the Argentine tactic revealed their individual trade secrets. A British naval architect published a scathing condemnation of the Argentine tactics, albeit only after the contracts were not awarded to a British company:
We may assume that the British battleships embody good ideas and good practice—in all probability the very best. These cannot fail, in a greater or less degree, to become part of the design which the British shipbuilder first submits to the Argentine Government. In the second inquiry it may be presumed that everything that was good in the first proposals had been seized upon by the Argentine authorities and asked for in the new design. This second request went not only to British builders but to all the builders of the world, and in this way it is exceedingly probable that a serious leakage of ideas and practice of our ships was disseminated through the world by the Argentine government. ... The third inquiry that was issued showed to all the builders of the world what has been eliminated or modified in the second inquiry; and so the process of leakage went merrily on, and with it that of the education of foreign builders and the Argentine government. (John H. Biles, "Argentina," Navy [Washington] 4, no. 7 : 30, in Robert Scheina, Latin America: A Naval History, 1810–1987 [Annapolis, MD: Naval Institute Press, 1987], 84)
The United States' Fore River Shipbuilding Company tendered the lowest bid—in part owing to the availability of cheap steel, though they were accused of quoting an unprofitable price so the ships could act as loss leaders—and was awarded the contract. This aroused further suspicion in the European bidders, who had previously believed that the United States was a non-contender, though Argentina did order twelve destroyers from British, French, and German shipyards to soften the blow. These bidders, along with newspapers like the Times (London), turned their anger on the American government under President William Howard Taft, whose so-called "Dollar Diplomacy" policy had led his State Department to go to great lengths to obtain the contracts.[K] Their anger may have been justified: Taft boasted in the high-profile 1910 State of the Union address that the Argentine dreadnought order was awarded to American manufacturers "largely through the good offices of the Department of State."
The Argentine contract included an option for a third dreadnought in case the Brazilian government adhered to its contractual obligations to order a third dreadnought. Two newspapers, La Prensa and La Argentina, heavily advocated for a third ship; the latter even started a petition to raise money for a new battleship. The American minister to Argentina, Charles H. Sherrill, cabled back to the United States that "this newspaper rivalry promises the early conclusion of a movement which means a third battleship whether by public subscription or by Government funds." On 31 December 1910, the Argentine government decided against constructing the ship, after Roque Sáenz Peña, who had been making entreaties to Brazil to end the expensive naval race, was elected to the Presidency. In addition, the intended target of the third Argentine dreadnought, the third Brazilian dreadnought, had already been canceled multiple times.[L]
While Argentina's principal concern was with Brazil, Chile wished to respond to Peruvian military acquisitions, including a recent cruiser order (the Almirante Grau class). The Chilean government delayed their naval plans after a financial depression brought on by the 1906 Valparaíso earthquake and a drastic fall in the nitrate market in 1907, but these economic problems were not enough to stop them from countering the dreadnoughts purchased by their traditional rival (Argentina).[M] Money for a naval building program was allocated in 1910. Although the Chilean government solicited bids from several armament companies, nearly all believed that a British company would win the contract; the American naval attaché opined that without anything short of a revolution the contracts were destined for the United Kingdom. The Chilean Navy had cultivated extensive ties with the United Kingdom's Royal Navy since the 1830s, when Chilean naval officers were given places on British ships to receive training and experience they could bring back to their country. This relationship had recently been cemented when a British naval mission was requested by Chile and sent in 1911. Still, the American and German governments attempted to swing sentiment to their side by dispatching modern naval vessels (Delaware and Von der Tann, respectively) to Chilean ports. Their efforts were futile, and the design tendered by Armstrong Whitworth was chosen on 25 July 1911.
Other South American navies were in no state to respond. The Peruvian Navy, fourth-largest on the continent, had been decimated during the naval campaign of the War of the Pacific (1879–83). It took the Peruvian government more than twenty years to order new warships—Almirante Grau and Coronel Bolognesi, scout cruisers delivered in 1906 and 1907. They were augmented by two submarines and a destroyer ordered from France. Still, with limited resources and little expertise in operating any kind of modern warship, let alone a dreadnought, Peru was far from joining the naval race. Their highest aspirations resulted in the near-acquisition of an obsolete French armored cruiser, Dupuy de Lôme, which they began payments on but never finished. The rest of the South American navies had no experience in operating large modern warships, though many added smaller vessels to their naval forces in the same time period. The Uruguayan Navy acquired a 1,400-long-ton (1,422 t) gunboat in 1910, while the Venezuelan Navy bought an ex-Spanish 1,125-long-ton (1,143 t) protected cruiser, Mariscal Sucre, from the United States in 1912. The Ecuadorian Navy added a Chilean torpedo boat to its fleet in 1907, complementing its fleet of two avisos, both around 800 long tons (810 t), two small steamers, and one minor coast guard ship.
Results: construction and trials of the new warships
Brazil's Minas Geraes, the lead ship, was laid down by Armstrong on 17 April 1907, while its sister São Paulo followed thirteen days later at Vickers. Completion of the partial hull needed to launch Minas Geraes was delayed by a five-month strike to 10 September 1908. São Paulo followed on 19 April 1909. Both were christened in front of large crowds by the wife of Francisco Régis de Oliveira, the Brazilian ambassador to the United Kingdom. After fitting-out, the period after a warship's launch where it is completed, Minas Geraes was put through multiple trials of the speed, endurance, efficiency, and weaponry of the ship in September, including what was at that time the heaviest broadside ever fired off a warship, Minas Geraes was completed and handed over to Brazil on 5 January 1910. The trials proved that the class' superfiring main battery was viable in that blast from an upper turret would not injure crewmen in a lower turret, and the ship itself managed to reach 21.432 knots (24.664 mph; 39.692 km/h) on an indicated horsepower (ihp) of 27,212. São Paulo followed its classmate in July, after its own trials at the end of May, where the ship reached 21.623 knots (24.883 mph; 40.046 km/h) at 28,645 ihp.
Argentina's Rivadavia was built by Fore River at its shipyard in Massachusetts, and as called for in the final contract, Moreno was subcontracted out to the New York Shipbuilding Corporation of New Jersey. The steel for the ships was largely supplied by the Bethlehem Steel Company of Pennsylvania. Rivadavia was laid down on 25 May 1910—one hundred years after the establishment of the first independent Argentine government, the Primera Junta—and launched on 26 August 1911. Moreno was laid down on 10 July 1910 and launched on 23 September 1911. Construction on both ships took longer than usual, and there were further delays during their sea trials when one of Rivadavia's turbines was damaged and one of Moreno's turbines failed. The two were only officially completed in December 1914 and February 1915. Even the departure of Moreno was marked by mishaps, as the ship sank a barge and ran aground twice.
Chile's Almirante Latorre was launched on 27 November 1913.[N] After the First World War broke out in Europe, work on Almirante Latorre was halted in August 1914, and it was formally purchased on 9 September after the British Cabinet recommended it four days earlier. Almirante Latorre was not forcibly seized like the Ottoman Reşadiye and Sultân Osmân-ı Evvel (ex-Rio de Janeiro), two other ships being built for a foreign navy, as a result of Chile's "friendly neutral" status with the United Kingdom. The British needed to maintain this relationship owing to their dependence on Chilean nitrate imports, which were vital to the British armament industry. The former Chilean ship—the largest vessel built by Armstrong up to that time—was completed on 30 September 1915, commissioned into the Royal Navy on 15 October, and served in that navy in the First World War. Work on the other battleship, Almirante Cochrane, was halted after the outbreak of war. The British purchased the incomplete hulk on 28 February 1918 for conversion to an aircraft carrier, as Almirante Cohrane was the only large and fast hull which was immediately available and capable of being modified into a carrier without major reconstruction. Low priority and quarrels with shipyard workers slowed completion of the ship; it was commissioned into the Royal Navy as Eagle in 1924.
Reciprocation: Brazil orders again
Rio de Janeiro
After the first Brazilian dreadnought, Minas Geraes, was launched, the Brazilian government began an extended campaign to remove the third dreadnought from the contract because of political—backlash from the Revolt of the Lash coupled with warming relations with Argentina—and economic reasons. After much negotiating and attempts from Armstrong to hold the Brazilian government to the contract, the Brazilians relented, due in part to lower bond rates that made it possible for the government to borrow the necessary money. Rio de Janeiro was laid for the first time in March 1910.
By May, the Brazilian government asked Armstrong to stop work on the new warship and to submit new designs which took in the most recent advance in naval technology, super-dreadnoughts. Eustace Tennyson-d'Eyncourt served as Armstrong's liaison to Brazil. The 1911 Encyclopædia Britannica specifies this design as a 655-foot (200 m) long overall, 32,000-long-ton (33,000 t) ship mounting twelve 14-inch guns and costing near £3,000,000. The many requests made by the Brazilian Navy for minor changes delayed the contract signing until 10 October 1910, and the battleship's keel laying was delayed further by a labor dispute with the Worshipful Company of Shipwrights, which led to a lockout. During these delays, a new Minister of the Navy, Admiral Marques Leão, was appointed to replace de Alencar—an important development, as the contract stipulated that the design could only proceed with the approval of the new Minister. Again, however, the Brazilian Navy found itself torn between two schools of thought: Leão and others in the navy favored a reversion to the 12-inch gun, but others, led by the outgoing Minister of the Navy (de Alencar) and the head of the Brazilian naval commission in the United Kingdom (Rear Admiral Duarte Huet de Bacellar Pinto Guedes), were strongly in favor of obtaining the ship with the largest armament—in this case, a design drawn up by Bacellar, carrying eight 16-inch guns, six 9.4-inch guns, and fourteen 6-inch guns.
D'Eyncourt, who had departed Brazil in October immediately after the contract was signed, returned in March 1911 to display the various design options available to the Brazilian Navy. Armstrong evidently thought the second faction would prevail, so he also took with him everything needed to close a deal on Bacellar's design. By mid-March, Armstrong's contacts in Brazil reported that Leão had convinced the recently elected President Hermes Rodrigues da Fonseca to cancel the design with twelve 14-inch guns in favor of a smaller ship. The credit may not have laid with Leão alone, though; da Fonseca was already dealing with multiple issues. Most importantly, he had to deal with the fallout from a large naval revolt in November 1910 (the Revolt of the Lash), which had seen three of the new vessels just purchased by the navy, along with one older coast-defense ship, mutiny against the use of corporal punishment in the navy.
To make matters worse, the dreadnoughts' expense combined with loan payments and a worsening economy led to growing government debt compounded by budget deficits. Brazil's GDP per capita, a measure of a nation's economy, fell from $836 in 1911 to a low of $780 in 1914 (both measured in 1990 international dollars), and did not fully recover until after the First World War. At the same time, Brazil's external and internal debt reached $500 and $335 million (respectively, in contemporaneous dollar amounts) by 1913, partly through rising deficits, which were $22 million in 1908 and $47 million by 1912. In May, the president commented negatively on the new ship:
When I assumed office, I found that my predecessor had signed a contract for the building of the battleship Rio de Janeiro, a vessel of 32,000 tons, with an armament of 14-inch guns. Considerations of every kind pointed to the inconvenience of acquiring such a vessel and to the revision of the contract in the sense of reducing the tonnage. This was done, and we shall possess a powerful unit which will not be built on exaggerated lines such as have not as yet stood the time of experience. (Hermes Rodrigues da Fonseca, 3 May 1911, in Robert Scheina, Latin America: A Naval History, 1810–1987 [Annapolis, MD: Naval Institute Press, 1987], 354)
D'Eyncourt probably avoided proposing any design with 16-inch guns when he saw the political situation. In meetings with Leão, designs of only ten 12-inch guns mounted on the centerline were quickly rejected, even though their broadside was as strong as that of the Minas Geraes class, but a design with no less than fourteen 12-inch guns emerged as the frontrunner. Author David Topliss attributes this to political necessity, as he believed the Minister of the Navy could not validate purchasing a seemingly less-powerful dreadnought than the Minas Geraes class: with larger guns ruled out, the only remaining choice was a larger number of guns.
After numerous requests for design alterations from the Brazilian Navy were accommodated or rejected, a contract was signed for a ship with fourteen 12-inch guns on 3 June 1911 for £2,675,000, and Rio de Janeiro's keel was laid for the fourth time on 14 September. It did not take long for the Brazilian government to reconsider their decision again; by mid-1912, battleships with 14-inch guns were under construction, and suddenly it seemed that Rio de Janeiro would be outclassed upon completion. Making matters worse, a European depression after the end of the Second Balkan War in August 1913 reduced Brazil's ability to obtain foreign loans. This coincided with a collapse in Brazil's coffee and rubber exports, the latter due to the loss of the Brazilian rubber monopoly to British plantations in the Far East. The price of coffee declined by 20 percent and Brazilian exports of it dropped 12.5 percent between 1912 and 1913; rubber saw a similar decline of 25 and 36.6 percent, respectively. The Brazilian Navy later claimed that selling Rio de Janeiro was a tactical decision, so they could have two divisions of battleships: two with 12-inch guns (the Minas Geraes class), and two with 15-inch guns.
Armstrong studied whether replacing the 12-inch guns with seven 15-inch guns would be feasible, but Brazil was probably already attempting to sell the ship. In the tension building up to the First World War, many countries, including Russia, Italy, Greece, and the Ottoman Empire, were interested in purchasing the ship. Russia quickly dropped out, leaving Italy and the rival Greeks and Ottomans. The Italians seemed close to purchasing the ship until the French government decided to back the Greeks—rather than allow the Italians, who were the principal naval rivals of the French, to obtain the ship. The Grecian government made an offer for the original purchase price plus an additional £50,000, but as the Greeks worked to obtain an initial installment, the Ottoman government was also making offers.
The Brazilian government rejected an Ottoman proposal to swap ships, with Brazil's Rio de Janeiro going to the Ottomans and Reşadiye going to Brazil, presumably with some amount of money, was rejected. The Brazilian government would only accept a monetary offer. Lacking this, the Ottomans were forced to find a loan. Fortunately for them, they were able to obtain one from French banker acting independent of his government, and the Ottoman Navy secured the Rio de Janeiro on 29 December 1913 for £1,200,000 as-is.[O] As part of the purchase contract, the remainder of the ship was constructed with £2,340,000 in Ottoman money. Renamed Sultân Osmân-ı Evvel, it was eventually taken over by the British shortly after the beginning of the First World War, serving with the Royal Navy as HMS Agincourt.[P]
The Argentine government authorized a third dreadnought in October 1912 in case Rio de Janeiro was completed and delivered, but the ship was never named or built.
After selling Rio de Janeiro, the Brazilian government asked Armstrong and Vickers to prepare designs for a new battleship, something strongly supported by the Navy League of Brazil (Liga Maritima). Armstrong agreed to construct the ship without any further payments from Brazil. They replied with at least fourteen designs, six from Vickers (December 1913 through March 1914) and eight from Armstrong (February 1914). Vickers' designs varied between eight and ten 15-inch and eight 16-inch guns, with speeds between 22 and 25 knots (the lower-end ships having mixed firing, the higher using oil), and displacements between 26,000 tonnes (26,000 long tons) and 30,500 tonnes (30,000 long tons). Armstrong took two basic designs, one with eight and the other with ten 15-inch guns, and varied their speed and firing.[Q]
While most secondary sources do not mention that Brazil ordered a battleship, with the ship's entry in the warship encyclopedia Conway's All the World's Fighting Ships even remarking that "Brazil had not selected from the four design variations", the Brazilian government chose what was labeled as Design 781, the first of the eight 15-inch designs tendered by Armstrong, which also shared characteristics with the Queen Elizabeth and Revenge classes then being built for the United Kingdom. They placed an order for one ship of this design, to be named Riachuelo, at the Armstrong Whitworth shipyard in Elswick on 12 May 1914. Some preliminary gathering of materials was completed for a planned keel laying date of 10 September, but the beginning of the First World War in August 1914 delayed plans. Riachuelo was officially suspended on 14 January 1915 and canceled on 13 May 1915.
Decline: instability and public unrest
This kind of impressment, combined with the heavy use of corporal punishment for even minor offenses, meant that relations between the black crews and white officers was tepid at best. Crewmen aboard Minas Geraes began planning for a revolt in 1910. They chose João Cândido Felisberto, an experienced sailor, as their leader. The mutiny was delayed several times by disagreements among the participants. In a major meeting on 13 November, some of the revolutionaries expressed a desire to revolt when the president would be inaugurated (15 November), but another leader, Francisco Dias Martins, talked them out of the idea, insisting that their demands would be overshadowed by a perceived rebellion against the political system as a whole. The immediate catalyst for their revolt came on 21 November 1910, when an Afro-Brazilian sailor, Marcelino Rodrigues Menezes, was brutally flogged 250 times for insubordination.[S] A Brazilian government observer, former navy captain José Carlos de Carvalho, stated that the sailor's back looked like "a mullet sliced open for salting."
The revolt began aboard Minas Geraes at around 10 p.m. on 22 November. Soon after, São Paulo, the new cruiser Bahia, and the twelve-year-old coast-defense ship Deodoro also revolted, all with relatively little violence. These represented the newest and most powerful ships in the navy; three of the four ships had been completed and commissioned only months before.[T] Nearly half of the navy's enlisted men in Rio at that time (2,379) revolted, and while the other 2,630 did not revolt, their loyalty was suspect in the eyes of naval officers. Felisberto and his fellow sailors demanded an end to the 'slavery' being practiced by the navy, most notably the continued use of whipping despite its ban in every other Western nation. Though navy officers and the president were staunchly opposed to any sort of amnesty and made plans to attack the rebel-held ships, many legislators were supportive. Over the next three days, both houses of the Brazilian National Congress, led by the influential senator Rui Barbosa, passed a general bill granting amnesty to all involved and ending the use of corporal punishment.
In the aftermath of the revolt, the two Brazilian dreadnoughts were disarmed by the removal of their guns' breechblocks. The revolt and consequent state of the navy, which was essentially unable to operate for fear of another rebellion, caused many leading Brazilians, including the president, prominent politicians like Barbosa and the Baron of Rio Branco, and the editor of the most respected newspaper in Brazil, Jornal do Commercio, to question the use of the new ships and support their sale to a foreign country.[U] The British ambassador to Brazil, W.H.D. Haggard, was ecstatic at Rio Branco's about-face, saying "This is indeed a wonderful surrender on the part of the man who was answerable for the purchase and who looked upon them as the most cherished offspring of his policy." Rui Barbosa was emphatic in his opposition to the ships in a speech given shortly before the vote on the amnesty bill:
Let me, in conclusion, point out two profound lessons of the bitter situation in which we find ourselves. The first is that a military government is not one whit more able to save the country from the vicissitudes of war nor any braver or resourceful in meeting them than a civil government. The second is that the policy of great armaments has no place on the American continent. At least on our part and the part of the nations which surround us, the policy which we ought to follow with joy and hope is that of drawing closer international ties through the development of commercial relations, the peace and friendship of all the peoples who inhabit the countries of America.
The experience of Brazil in this respect is decisive. All of the forces employed for twenty years in the perfecting of the means of our national defense have served, after all, to turn upon our own breasts these successive attempts at revolt. International war has not yet come to the doors of our republic. Civil war has come many times, armed by these very weapons which we have so vainly prepared for our defense against a foreign enemy. Let us do away with these ridiculous and perilous great armaments, securing international peace by means rather of just and equitable relations with our neighbors. On the American continent, at least, it is not necessary to maintain a 'peace armada'; that hideous cancer which is devouring continuously the vitals of the nations of Europe. (Rui Barbosa, 24 November 1910, in David Lambuth, " ," Independent 69 : 1433)
In the end, the president and cabinet decided against selling the ships because of a fear of a consequent negative effect in domestic politics—even though they agreed that the ships should be disposed of, possibly to fund smaller warships capable of traversing Brazil's many rivers. The executive's apprehension was heightened by Barbosa's speech given before the revolt's end, as he also used the occasion to attack the government, or what he called the "brutal militaristic regime." Still, the Brazilians ordered Armstrong to cease working towards laying down a third Minas Geraes class dreadnought, which induced the Argentine government to not pick up their contractual option for a third dreadnought, and the United States' ambassador to Brazil cabled home to state that the Brazilian desire for naval preeminence in Latin America was quelled, though this proved to be short-lived.
Although the Minas Geraes class remained in Brazilian hands, the mutiny had a clear detrimental effect on the navy's readiness: by 1912, an Armstrong agent stated that the ships were in terrible condition, with rust already forming on turrets and boilers. The agent believed it would cost the Brazilian Navy around £700,000 to address these issues. Haggard tersely commented, "These ships are absolutely useless to Brazil", a sentiment echoed by Proceedings. Despite the government's refusal to sell the two Minas Geraes-class ships, this sequence of events, when combined with the Baron of Rio Branco's death in 1912, were major factors in the Brazilian government's decision—which was possibly made by January 1913, but certainly by September—to sell Rio de Janiero.
After Rio de Janeiro was sold to the Ottoman Empire, the Argentine government bowed to popular demand and began to seek a buyer for their two dreadnoughts. The money received in return would be devoted to internal improvements. Three bills directing that the battleships be sold were introduced into the Argentine National Congress in mid-1914, but all were defeated. Still, the British and Germans expressed worries that the ships could be sold to a belligerent nation, while the Russian, Austrian, Ottoman, Italian, and Greek governments were all reportedly interested in buying both ships, the latter as a counter to the Ottoman purchase of Rio de Janeiro.
The New-York Tribune reported in late April that the Argentine government rejected a $17.5 million offer for Moreno alone, which would have netted them a large profit over the original construction cost of the ships ($12 million). The United States, worried that its neutrality would not be respected and its technology would be released for study to a foreign country, put diplomatic pressure on the Argentine government to keep the ships, which it eventually did. Similarly, the New-York Tribune, in early November 1913, and Proceedings, in May and June 1914, reported that Greece had reached an accord to purchase Chile's first battleship as a counterbalance to the Ottoman acquisition of Rio de Janeiro, but despite a developing sentiment within Chile to sell one or both of the dreadnoughts, no deal was made.
In each of the countries involved in the South American dreadnought arms race, movements arose that advocated the sale of the dreadnoughts to redirect the substantial amounts of money involved toward what they viewed as more worthy pursuits. These costs were rightfully viewed as enormous. After the Minas Geraes class was ordered, a Brazilian newspaper equated the initial purchase cost for the original three ships as equaling 3,125 miles of railroad tracks or 30,300 homesteads. Naval historian Robert Scheina put the price at £6,110,100 without accounting for ammunition, which was £605,520, or necessary upgrades to docks, which was £832,000. Costs for maintenance and related issues, which in the first five years of Minas Geraes's and São Paulo's commissioned lives was about 60 percent of the initial cost, only added to the already staggering sum of money. The two Rivadavias were purchased for nearly a fifth of the Argentine government's yearly income, a figure which did not include the later in-service costs. Historian Robert K. Massie rounded the figure to a full quarter of each government's annual income.
In addition, the nationalistic sentiments that exacerbated the naval arms race gave way to slowing economies and negative public opinions which came to support investing inside the country instead. Commenting on this, the United States' Minister to Chile, Henry Prather Fletcher, wrote to Secretary of State William Jennings Bryan: "Since the naval rivalry began in 1910, financial conditions, which were none too good then, have grown worse; and as time approaches for the final payment, feeling has been growing in these countries that perhaps they are much more in need of money than of battleships."
Aftermath: post-war expansions
The First World War effectively ended the dreadnought race, as all three countries suddenly found themselves unable to acquire additional warships. After the conflict, the race never resumed, but many plans for post-war naval expansions and improvements were postulated by the Argentine, Brazilian, and Chilean governments.
The Brazilians modernized Minas Geraes, São Paulo, and the two cruisers acquired under the 1904 plan, Bahia and Rio Grande do Sul, between 1918 and 1926. This was sorely needed, as all four ships were not ready to fight a modern war. Although the Brazilian government intended to send São Paulo overseas for service in the Grand Fleet, both it and Minas Geraes had not been modernized since entering service, meaning they were without essential items like modern fire control for their weapons. Maintenance on the two ships had also been neglected, which was most clearly illustrated when São Paulo was sent to New York for modernization: fourteen of its eighteen boilers broke down, and the ship required the assistance of the American battleship Nebraska and cruiser Raleigh to continue the voyage. The two cruisers were in "deplorable" condition, as they were able to steam at a top speed of only 18 knots (21 mph; 33 km/h) thanks to a desperate need for new condensers and boiler tubes. With repairs, though, both participated in the war as part of Brazil's main naval contribution to the conflict.
The Brazilian Navy also made plans to acquire additional ships in the 1920s and 30s, but both were sharply reduced from the original proposals. In 1924, they contemplated constructing a relatively modest number of warships, including a heavy cruiser, five destroyers, and five submarines. In the same year, the newly arrived American naval mission, led by Rear Admiral Carl Theodore Vogelgesang, tendered a naval expansion plan of 151,000 tons, divided between battleships (70,000), cruisers (60,000), destroyers (15,000), and submarines (6,000). The United States' State Department, led by Secretary of State Charles Evans Hughes and fresh from negotiating the Washington Naval Treaty, was not keen on seeing another dreadnought race, so Hughes quickly moved to thwart the efforts of the mission. Only one Italian-built submarine, Humaytá, was acquired during this time.
Minas Geraes was modernized again at the Rio de Janeiro Naval Yard from June 1931 to April 1938,[V] but plans to give similar treatment to São Paulo were dropped due to the ship's poor material condition. During the same period, the Brazilian government looked into purchasing cruisers from the United States Navy but ran into the restrictions of the Washington and London Naval Treaties, which prevented the sale of used warships to foreign countries. They also tried to purchase destroyers from the United States, but eventually contracted for six destroyers from the United Kingdom.[W] In the interim, a plan to lease six destroyers from the United States Navy was abandoned after it was met with strong opposition from both international and American institutions. Three Marcilio Dias-class destroyers, based on the American Mahan class, were laid down in Brazil with six minelayers, all of which were launched between 1939 and 1941. Though both programs required foreign assistance to complete and were consequently delayed by the war, all nine ships were completed by 1944.
In the 1920s, nearly all of the major warships of the Argentine Navy were obsolete; aside from Rivadavia and Moreno, the newest major warship was constructed at the end of the nineteenth century. The Argentine government recognized this, and as part of holding on to their naval superiority in the region, they sent Rivadavia and Moreno to the United States in 1924 and 1926 to be modernized. In addition, in 1926 the Argentine Congress allotted 75 million gold pesos for a naval building program. This resulted in the acquisition of three cruisers (the Italian-built Veinticinco de Mayo class and the British-built La Argentina, twelve destroyers (the Spanish-built Churruca class and the British-built Mendoza/Buenos Aires classes), and three submarines (the Italian-built Santa Fe class).
Chile began to seek additional ships to bolster its fleet in 1919, and the United Kingdom eagerly offered many of its surplus warships. This action worried nearby nations, who feared that a Chilean attempt to become the region's most powerful navy would destabilize the area and start another naval arms race. Chile asked for Canada and Eagle, the two battleships they ordered before the war, but the cost of converting the latter back to a battleship was too high. Planned replacements included the two remaining Invincible-class battlecruisers, but a leak to the press of the secret negotiations to acquire them caused an uproar within Chile itself over the value of such ships. In the end, Chile only bought Canada and four destroyers in April 1920. All five had been ordered from British yards by the Chilean government before 1914, but were purchased by the Royal Navy after the British entered the First World War. All were obtained for comparatively low prices; Canada was sold for just £1,000,000, less than half of what had been required to construct the ship.
Over the next several years, the Chileans continued to acquire more ships from the British, like six destroyers (the Serrano class) and three submarines (the Capitan O'Brien class). Almirante Latorre was modernized in the United Kingdom from 1929 to 1931 at the Devonport Dockyard. A recession and a major naval revolt then led to the battleship's de facto inactivation in the early 1930s. In the late 1930s, the Chilean government inquired into the possibility of constructing an 8,600-long-ton (8,700 t) cruiser in the United Kingdom, Italy, Germany, or Sweden, but this did not lead to an order. A second plan to acquire two small cruisers was dropped with the beginning of the Second World War. Soon after the attack on Pearl Harbor, the United States attempted to purchase Almirante Latorre, two destroyers, and a submarine tender, probably because the Chilean Navy had a reputation for keeping its ships in top-quality condition, but the offer was rejected.
At the beginning of the Second World War, the three major South American navies found themselves unable to acquire major warships because the nations they purchased from were at war. With the end of the war, the United States and United Kingdom had many ships that were unnecessary or surplus to the requirements of their post-war navies. The war had proved the obsolete status of battleships, so the South American navies were seeking cruisers, destroyers, and submarines, yet they ran into political difficulties in acquiring anything larger than Flower-class corvettes and River-class frigates. They were only able to acquire them when the Red Scare began to strongly affect American and international politics. One of the deals reached under the Mutual Defense Assistance Act (1949) sold six American light cruisers to Argentina, Brazil, and Chile in January 1951.[X] While this bolstered the navies of important South American allies of the United States, which would be treaty-bound to assist the United States in any war, naval historian Robert Scheina argues that the American government also used the opportunity to significantly affect the traditional naval rivalry among the three countries. The warships sold unilaterally changed the naval outlook of all three nations, leading them to accept parity (as opposed to the Argentine pre-war stipulation that its fleet be equal to Brazil's and Chile's combined).
With the influx of these relatively modern warships, the battleships of the three countries were quickly sold for scrap, with the Brazilian ships being disposed of first. São Paulo was sold in 1951 but sank in a storm north of the Azores while being towed to its final destination. Minas Geraes was sold two years later and broken up in Genoa beginning in 1954. Of the Argentine dreadnoughts, Moreno was brought to Japan for scrapping in 1957, while Rivadavia was broken up in Italy beginning in 1959. Almirante Latorre, inactive and unrepaired since an explosion in its engine room in 1951, was decommissioned in October 1958 and followed Moreno to Japan in 1959.
The historiography, or works published on a specific historial topic, behind the South American dreadnought race is relatively small in number and coverage, especially in English. General histories of Latin America rarely cover it, while general maritime histories on the period (c. 1904–14) avoid the topic and focus on industrialized powers, especially the Anglo-German naval arms race.[Y] More specific English-language works in these areas tend to summarize the region's dreadnought race, focus on the ships themselves rather than their impact on the region, or look at the closely related Revolt of the Lash. The few who examined the issue in-depth believed that the race had little overall international strategic purpose, particularly after dreadnoughts were constructed in higher numbers, and simply served to destabilize the region, but others have remarked on the race's regional implications. Seward Livermore, writing from Brown University, looked at the race about thirty years after its conclusion from an American perspective, meaning he gave emphasis to the Argentine order, the role of the American government in obtaining it, and the attempts to obtain the Chilean order. Livermore was mildly critical of the arms race for its destabilizing effects:
As a means of promoting closer cooperation or understanding between the two hemispheres the international armament business was of very dubious worth. The peddling of war material to small but quarrelsome nations was fraught with too many unpleasant and unpredictable consequences. Battleship diplomacy had been a novel departure in American statecraft; some material success had been achieved, but the net result, from the standpoint of the imponderable factors, was most unsatisfactorily disappointing. (Seward Livermore, "Battleship Diplomacy in South America: 1905–1925," Journal of Modern History 16, no. 1 : 48)
British maritime historian Richard Hough, writing in 1966, remarked on the huge cost of the warships and expressed disbelief that the countries thought they could afford the ships in the first place, let alone maintain them as the years went by. He also wondered as to the original purpose of Brazil's ships, as in his view the relations between Brazil and its naval rivals, Argentina and Chile, were quite good given prior context. As Hough saw the situation, the only ones to gain from the arms race were the armament companies involved in the ships' construction.
Robert Scheina, a Latin American naval historian, devoted a chapter of his 1987 book, Latin America: A Naval History, 1810–1987, to the dreadnought race. Although this was one of the first comprehensive works on the topic of Latin American maritime history, it was criticized by some reviewers for trying to fit too much information into too short a space. This shows in the dreadnought race's coverage, which was dwarfed by more recent events, especially the Falklands War (seven pages versus fifty-five). Still, Scheina included a small conclusion to the chapter, where he outlined 'lessons' learned by the three countries in the dreadnought race. Like Hough, he highlighted the exorbitant maintenance costs of the dreadnoughts. In addition, they were meant to be used against other dreadnoughts, but as soon as the traditional powers built dreadnoughts in large numbers, the ones owned by Argentina, Brazil, and Chile were much less of a threat. Last, Scheina pointed out the benefits of international attention, in the form of military alliances, brought by the dreadnoughts, but also noted that this resulted in the same outcome as lesson two—as the years went on, the ships dwindled in importance.
Jonathan A. Grant examined many of the arms sales from imperial and great powers to lesser-developed countries in the 1800s and early 1900s; he devoted one chapter to the South American and Greco–Ottoman dreadnought races. He believed that the two showed democratization does not necessarily lead to peaceful coexistence, as it was the elected legislatures fueling and funding the arms race—absolute leaders were not the only ones to fall prey to the seductive goal of obtaining regional dominance. Overall, he tried to show that the South American race was just another cog in a worldwide tale of the influences of nationalism and imperialism causing states to order armament in attempts to gain prestige, though this cog was driven by the aggressive salesmen of various armament companies.
Brazilian historian João Roberto Martins Filho utilized British and Brazilian archival material to focus on the Brazilian dreadnoughts in his Portuguese-language book, A marinha brasileira na era dos encouraçados, 1895–1910, or The Brazilian Navy in the Era of Dreadnoughts. Martins looked at the race from an entirely different approach and demonstrated that the Brazilian Navy was not ready for the disruptive influence of modern vessels. By focusing on acquiring the powerful new dreadnoughts, rather than adequately training the huge amounts of manpower needed to crew the ships—a third of the entire navy—or the maintenance necessary to keep the dreadnoughts operational, the navy was without the ability to conduct serious operations soon after their delivery. He proposed that the dreadnoughts' modern conditions were not compatible with the liberal use of corporal punishment, providing a crucial spark to the Revolt of the Lash.
|Ship||Country||Displacement||Main armament||Builder||Laid down||Launched||Completed||Fate|
|Minas Geraes||18,976 long tons (lt)
19,281 tonnes (t)
|Twelve 12-inch/45 cal||Armstrong Whitworth||17 April 1907||10 September 1908||January 1910||Scrapped beginning 1954|
|São Paulo||18,803 lt/19,105 t||Vickers||30 April 1907||19 April 1909||July 1910||Sank en route to scrapyard, November 1951|
|Rio de Janeiro||27,410 lt/27,850 t||Fourteen 12-inch/45||Armstrong||14 September 1911||22 January 1913||August 1914||Acquired by Ottoman Empire, 1913; taken over by the United Kingdom, 1914; scrapped beginning 1924|
|Riachuelo||30,000 lt/30500 t||Eight 15-inch/45||–||–||–||Canceled after the outbreak of the First World War|
|Rivadavia||27,500 lt/27,900 t||Twelve 12-inch/50||Fore River||25 May 1910||26 August 1911||December 1914||Scrapped beginning 1959|
|Moreno||9 July 1910||23 September 1911||February 1915||Scrapped beginning 1957|
|Almirante Latorre||28,100 lt/28,600 t||Ten 14-inch/45||Armstrong||27 November 1911||27 November 1913||October 1915||Acquired by the United Kingdom, 1914; reacquired by Chile, 1920; scrapped beginning 1959|
|Almirante Cochrane||–||–||20 February 1913||8 June 1918||February 1924||Acquired by the United Kingdom, 1914; converted to an aircraft carrier; sunk 11 August 1942|
Statistics compiled from: Preston, "Great Britain," 38; Scheina, Naval History, 321–22; ———, "Argentina," 401; ———, "Brazil," 404; Topliss, "Brazilian Dreadnoughts," 249–51, 281–83, 286.
- "Minas Geraes" was the spelling when the battleship was commissioned, but later changes to Portuguese orthography deprecated it in favor of "Minas Gerais". Primary sources, being before the orthographical change, obviously use the former, but there is no consensus spelling in secondary sources. This article uses "Geraes".
- cf. "Obsolescence" in Pre-dreadnought battleship.
- In 1893, Rear Admiral Custódio José de Mello, the minister of the navy, revolted against President Floriano Peixoto, bringing nearly all of the Brazilian warships currently in the country with him. Mello's forces took Desterro when the governor surrendered, and began to coordinate with secessionists in the southern province of Rio Grande do Sul, but loyal Brazilian forces overwhelmed them both. Most of the rebel naval forces were sailed to Argentina, where their crews surrendered; the flagship, Aquidabã, held out near Desterro until it was sunk by a torpedo boat.
- A professional diplomat and the son of the famed Viscount of Rio Braco, the Baron of Rio Branco was named as Brazil's Foreign Minister in 1902 after a distinguished career as a diplomat, and served there until his death in 1912. In that time, he oversaw the signing of many treaties and mediated territorial disputes between Brazil and its neighbors, and became a famous name in his own right.
- The countries' actual naval tonnages were 36,896 long tons (37,488 t) for Chile, 34,425 long tons (34,977 t) for Argentina, and 27,661 long tons (28,105 t) for Brazil, while the populations were estimated by Livermore at three million, five million, and fourteen million, respectively. However, while the population statistics are significant, this needs to be put into its proper economic context: Angus Maddison and the scholars continuing his work in quantitative macroeconomic history have shown that Argentina and Chile's 1904 gross domestic product per capita were $3,191 and $2,287 (respectively) in 1990 international dollars, juxtaposed against just $713 for Brazil. These are four-and-a-half and three times greater than Brazil's. By 1910, the disparity had grown: Argentina and Chile's GDP per capita was five and four times larger, respectively.
- In reality, the first German dreadnought was commissioned on 1 October 1909, about three months before Brazil's Minas Geraes was completed, despite being laid down two months after the Brazilian ship.
- Many contemporary sources reported the varying versions, including: "British-Brazilian Warships," Navy, 11–12; "The Brazilian 'Dreadnoughts'," Navy, 13–14; "Mystery of the Brazilian 'Dreadnoughts'," Literary Digest, 102–03; "The Mystery of the Great Brazilian Dreadnoughts," World's Work, 10867–68; "Left Behind in Rio," Boston Evening Transcript, 25 January 1908, 2; "Giant Ships for England or Japan," New York Herald, 1 July 1908, 9; "Brazil, Japan, and Great Britain," Sun (New York), 1 July 1908, 6; "The Brazilian Battleships," Japan Weekly Mail, 5 September 1908, 288; "Germany May Buy English Warships," New York Times, 9 August 1908, C8; "May Take Brazil's Ships, Day (New London), 19 March 1909, 7; "The Race for Naval Supremacy," Nelson Evening Mail, 6 April 1909, 2. Interestingly, on the eve of the First World War, the Russian government—a country rarely mentioned in these news articles—actually did make offers to the Brazilian and Argentine governments for their dreadnoughts, possibly to preempt the Ottomans. Both refused.
- A series of rumors supporting the Japanese theory, where Brazil was alleged to have placed large armament orders in the United Kingdom on behalf of Japan for use against the United States, was strongly denied by the Brazilian government. Rio Branco, through a telegram sent to the Brazilian ambassador to the United States Joaquim Nabuco, based his counter-argument in the close relationship between Brazilian and American governments, saying "The old and cordial friendship between our countries is known, as well as the excellent relations existing between their governments. ... Every sensible person will understand that an honest and respectable government would not lead itself to play the part attributed to Brazil by the inventor of the news."
- cf. "Hague Convention of 1907" in Hague Conventions of 1899 and 1907.
- The end of Zeballos' tenure as Foreign Minister was extremely contentious, as another controversy closely linked to him began shortly after his resignation. The Argentine government, fearing a Brazilian–Chilean alliance, paid particular attention to the two countries' communications, leading to the now-famous Telegram no. 9. This communication, sent from the Brazilian government to their representatives in Chile, was intercepted by the Argentine government and supposedly decoded in Zeballos' last days as minister. It was read in a congressional session one day after Zeballos' departure, and the new Minister of Foreign Affairs claimed it was proof of intended Brazilian aggression against Argentina. The full but fraudulent contents of the telegram were released by Zeballos to the press, which kindled international disenchantment with Brazil. However, in a public relations coup, Rio Branco released the cipher and actual full contents of the telegram, which proved it contained no reference to belligerent Brazilian intents on Argentina. The actual telegram was then printed in several prominent Argentine newspapers. Zeballos was later accused of deliberately distorting or forging the telegram, though there was no definitive proof; it may have been his secretary. Whatever Zeballos' culpability, his actions in that June may have been motivated by a personal vendetta against Rio Branco, who had bested Zeballos on several occasions since 1875, most notably during a border dispute arbitrated by American President Grover Cleveland (the Question of Palms, or Questão de Palmas).
- The concessions included the removal of import tariffs on hides from Argentina, an offer to release the Americans' most technologically advanced fire-control system and torpedo tubes for use on the Argentine ships, and promises for additional concessions if American shipbuilders were selected. American bankers were also persuaded to offer a US$10 million loan to the Argentine government. The efforts to win the Argentine battleship orders came as part of a widespread and mostly unsuccessful effort to obtain naval contracts from countries from China to Europe to Latin America.
- The third dreadnought, which was provided for in the original contract and would have been named Rio de Janeiro, was laid down on 16 March 1910. As the ship had already been eclipsed by new naval technology (chiefly the advent of super-dreadnoughts, beginning with the British Orion), the Brazilian government canceled it on 7 May and asked Armstrong to prepare a new design. The new contract was signed in October, but by November a new naval minister was appointed who had a different design in mind. cf. Reciprocation: Brazil orders again.
- Livermore and Grant, who cites Livermore's work, both attribute part of this delay to a 1908 earthquake, but no major earthquake hit Chile in that year, cf. List of earthquakes in Chile. However, the Valparaíso earthquake of 1906 caused nearly 4,000 deaths, a tsunami, and a wide swath of destruction over the Chilean capital and surrounding areas. Given this, and at least one primary source's confirmation that the plans were delayed by the Valparaíso earthquake, it seems likely that Livermore's 1908 earthquake was a simple typographical error inadvertently repeated in Grant's account.
- Scheina gives 17 November as the launching date, though this appears to be a typographical error.
- The surprise acquisition of Rio de Janeiro by the Ottomans caused alarm in the Grecian government, due to what contemporary commentators called the "[assured Ottoman] naval superiority over Greece." They scrambled to put offers together for Almirante Latorre or one of the Argentine dreadnoughts to counter the purchase, which would have given the Ottomans two dreadnoughts by the end of 1914 (the other being Reşadiye, later taken over by the British and renamed Erin). To oppose them, Greece would have only had Salamis, which was being built in Germany and scheduled for completion in March 1915, and two entirely obsolete pre-dreadnoughts, Kilkis and Lemnos, purchased from the United States in May 1914 to avert what seemed to be an imminent war.
- This action is commonly cited as a major reason in the Ottoman decision to join the Central Powers and enter the First World War, but historians have disputed this claim, using as evidence the signing of a secret alliance between the German and Ottoman Empires on 2 August 1914 and the lack of any response to the United Kingdom's offer of compensation for the ship.
- Topliss (1985), in writing a design history of the four Brazilian dreadnoughts, makes no mention of Vanterpool's (1969) article, which detailed four substantially different designs prepared in October 1913 by Armstrong. Sturton (1970), whose article was written in direct reply to Vanterpool, found that designs were submitted after that date and that one, bearing little resemblance to anything uncovered by Vanterpool, was ordered. Topliss, on whose research this paragraph is largely based, appears to have expanded upon Sturton's work, but does not include the designs detailed by Vanterpool, even though his article is listed in Topliss' sources.
- Other English translations include the "Revolt of the Whip" or the "Revolt against the Lash".
- There is some scholarly confusion over the exact date of Menezes' lashing. Morgan (2003) says that it occurred at dawn on 16 November and the span between whipping and revolt was due to the need for additional planning and organization. Love (2012), the account followed here, states that Menezes was whipped on the night of 21 November, with the revolt starting around 10 p.m. on the 22nd. Both, however, agree that the incident was the immediate cause of the uprising.
- Other ships joined the mutiny as well, including the minelayer República, the training ship Benjamin Constant, and the torpedo boats Tamoio and Timbira. The crew of these ships made up only two percent of the mutineers, though, and many of them moved to the largest ships to reinforce their crews after the revolt began.
- On the status of Jornal do Commercio within Brazil, see Love, Revolt, 3.
- Other sources give different dates for the modernization, such as 1931 to 1935, and 1934 to 1937.
- These were taken over after the beginning of the Second World War and became the Havant class.
- Most of the cruisers transferred were from the Brooklyn class, but one of Brazil's cruisers (Almirante Tamandaré) was from the slightly improved St. Louis class.
- Interestingly, there are similarities shared by these two arms races—as Richard Hough stated, "The middle period of the Dreadnought was enlivened by a naval competition in South America that was a satirical reflection in miniature of the hysteria-ridden Anglo–German race."
- "The Brazilian Battleship 'Minas Geraes'," Scientific American, 241.
- Scheina, Naval History, 45–46, 347; Garrett, "Beagle Channel," 85–87.
- Scheina, Naval History, 45–49, 297–98, 347.
- Scheina, Naval History, 49–51.
- Scheina, Naval History, 52; Massie, Castles, 204.
- Scheina, Naval History, 49–52; Grant, Rulers, Guns, and Money, 146.
- Grant, Rulers, Guns, and Money, 148; Martins, A marinha brasileira, 56, 67; Brook, Warships for Export, 133; Livermore, "Battleship Diplomacy," 32; Topliss, "Brazilian Dreadnoughts," 240.
- Scheina, Naval History, 67–76, 352.
- Love, Revolt, 16; Sondhaus, Naval Warfare, 216; Scheina, "Brazil," 403.
- Viana Filho, A vida do Barão do Rio Branco, 445.
- Love, Revolt, 8–9.
- Scheina, Naval History, 45–52; Garrett, "Beagle Channel," 86–88.
- Martins, A marinha brasileira, 50–51; Martins, "Colossos do mares," 75; Livermore, "Battleship Diplomacy," 32.
- Scheina, "Brazil," 403; Livermore, "Battleship Diplomacy," 32.
- Livermore, "Battleship Diplomacy," 32.
- Bolt and van Zanden, "Maddison Project."
- Hutchinson, "Coffee 'Valorization'," 528–29.
- Love, Revolt, 14; Scheina, Naval History, 80.
- Scheina, Naval History, 80; Martins, A marinha brasileira, 156–58; Scheina, "Brazil," 403; Topliss, "Brazilian Dreadnoughts," 240.
- Scheina, Naval History, 80; Martins, A marinha brasileira, 80, 128, 158.
- Viana Filho, A vida do Barão do Rio Branco, 446.
- English, Armed Forces, 108; Scheina, Naval History, 80; Brook, Warships for Export, 133; Grant, Rulers, Guns, and Money, 147; Martins, A marinha brasileira, 75, 78; Alger, "Professional Notes," 1051–52.
- Martins, A marinha brasileira, 80; Topliss, "Brazilian Dreadnoughts," 240–46.
- Foreign Office, British National Archives 371/201, General Report on Brazil for the Year 1906, W.H.D. Haggard, in Grant, Rulers, Guns, and Money, 149.
- Livermore, "Battleship Diplomacy," 33.
- Grant, Rulers, Guns, and Money, 152; Livermore, "Battleship Diplomacy," 33; "New Era in the Americas," Boston Evening Transcript, 17 November 1906, 1.
- Scheina, Naval History, 81; Topliss, "Brazilian Dreadnoughts," 246; "Brazilian Battleship 'Minas Geraes'—Most Powerful Fighting Ship Afloat," Scientific American, 428.
- "Brazil," Naval Engineers, 836.
- Scheina, Naval History, 81; "Brazil," Naval Engineers, 883; "The Brazilian Navy," Times (London), 28 December 1908, 48f.
- Love, Revolt, 16–17; Scheina, Naval History, 81.
- Grant, Rulers, Drugs, and Money, 152.
- Topliss, "Brazilian Dreadnoughts," 246.
- "A Dreadnought For Brazil," New York Times, 5 March 1907, 5; "British & Foreign," Poverty Bay Herald, 6 March 1907, 6; "Brazilian Navy," Argus, 7 March 1907, 7.
- "The Large Order for Foreign Battleships," Times (London), 28 August 1907, 8f; "Brazil Arming," Sydney Morning Herald, 29 August 1907, 7.
- "The Mystery of the Great Brazilian Dreadnoughts," World's Work, 10867; Earle, "Professional Notes," 305.
- Breyer, Battleships, 320; Scheina, "Brazil," 404; Sondhaus, Naval Warfare, 216.
- Campbell, "Germany," 145; Scheina, "Brazil," 403.
- Love, Revolt, 15; Sondhaus, Naval Warfare, 227–28.
- Martins, A marinha brasileira, 144–50; Martins, "Colossos do mares", 77; Mead, "Reaction," 238; "The Mystery of the Great Brazilian Dreadnoughts," World's Work, 10867; "British-Brazilian Warships," Navy, 11; "The Warships for Brazil," Times (London), 14 July 1908, 8c; "The Brazilian Battleships," Japan Weekly Mail, 5 September 1908, 288.
- Scheina, "Brazil," 404; Haag, "O Almirante Negro," 89.
- Budzbon, "Russia," 291; Sondhaus, Naval Warfare, 217.
- "The Reported Purchase of Battleships," Navy, 39.
- Трубицын, Линкоры, 6; Topliss, "Brazilian Dreadnoughts," 246; "Naval and Military Intelligence," Times (London), 22 March 1908, 9e; "Naval Policy," Times (London), 24 March 1908, 6e; "Battleships for Brazil," Times (London), 12 May 1908, 4d; "The Warships for Brazil," Times (London), 14 July 1908, 8c; "Naval and Military Intelligence," Times (London), 18 July 1908, 12c; "British and Foreign News," Evening Post (Wellington), 12 September 1908, 13.
- "May Take Brazil's Ships, Day (New London), 19 March 1909, 7; "The Brazilian Battleships," Times (London), 23 March 1909, 6d; "House of Commons," Times (London), 23 March 1909, 12a; "The Brazilian Battleships," Times (London), 25 March 1909, 7b; "The Naval Scare," Sydney Mail, 24 March 1909, 24; "England's Power on the Sea Safe," New York Herald, 25 March 1909, 9.
- "The Brazilian Battleships," Times (London), 25 March 1909, 7b.
- Трубицын, Линкоры, 3; Livermore, "Battleship Diplomacy," 32.
- Martins, "Colossos do mares," 76.
- Hough, Dreadnought, 72; Scheina, "Argentina," 400.
- Heinsfeld, "Falsificando telegramas," 3–4.
- Viana Filho, A vida do Barão do Rio Branco, 441–44; Heinsfeld, "Falsificando telegramas," 1–2, 5–10.
- "A Message From Garcia," Boston Evening Transcript, 4 June 1910, 3.
- Livermore, "Battleship Diplomacy," 33; Heinsfeld, "Falsificando telegramas," 1; Di Biassi, "Ley de Armamento Naval Nº 6283"; "Brasil's New War Vessels," New York Herald, 10 September 1908, 8.
- Topliss, "Brazilian Dreadnoughts," 247; "Brazil's Armament, No Menace, but Expresses Sovereignty," New York Herald, 10 September 1908, 9.
- Grant, Rulers, Guns, and Money, 156; Livermore, "Battleship Diplomacy," 33; "Argentina's Defense," Argus, 29 August 1908, 20; "Brazil and Argentina May Fight," Pittsburg Press, 30 August 1908, 1.
- Livermore, "Battleship Diplomacy," 33; "Argentina and Brazil," Sydney Morning Herald, 1 October 1908, 7; "Battleships for Argentina," Sydney Morning Herald, 20 November 1908, 7.
- Hough, Big Battleship, 19; Livermore, "Battleship Diplomacy," 33; Di Biassi, "Ley de Armamento Naval Nº 6283"; "The Status of South American Navies," Naval Engineers, 254; "Dreadnoughts for Argentina," Sydney Morning Herald, 21 December 1908, 7.
- Трубицын, Линкоры, 3; Scheina, Naval History, 83; Livermore, "Battleship Diplomacy," 33.
- "Argentina's Plans Changed," New York Times, 5 December 1909, C2.
- Scheina, Naval History, 83; Hough, Big Battleship, 21.
- Hough, Big Battleship, 22; Livermore, "Battleship Diplomacy," 39.
- Livermore, "Battleship Diplomacy," 36–39.
- Scheina, Naval History, 83; Livermore, "Battleship Diplomacy," 36.
- Livermore, "American Navy," 875–76.
- William Howard Taft, "Second State of the Union Address," 6 December 1910.
- Livermore, "Battleship Diplomacy," 42.
- Livermore, "Battleship Diplomacy," 44.
- Sherrill to Philander C. Knox, No. 415, 11 June 1910, S.D.F., Argentina, in Livermore, "Battleship Diplomacy," 44.
- Livermore, "Battleship Diplomacy," 44–45.
- Topliss, "Brazilian Dreadnoughts," 249, 254.
- Topliss, "Brazilian Dreadnoughts," 249–63, 281–82.
- Grant, Rulers, Guns, and Money, 146–47.
- Livermore, "Battleship Diplomacy," 40–41.
- Grant, Rulers, Guns, and Money, 168; Livermore, "Battleship Diplomacy," 40.
- "The Status of South American Navies," Naval Engineers, 257.
- "Acorazado Almirante Latorre," Unidades Navales.
- Scheina, Naval History, 138.
- Livermore, "Battleship Diplomacy," 41–42.
- Schenia, "Peru," 409–10; Schenia, "Ecuador," 414; Schenia, "Uruguay," 424–25; Schenia, "Venezuela," 425; "The Status of South American Navies," Naval Engineers, 254–57.
- Scheina, Naval History, 321; Scheina, "Brazil," 404; Topliss, "Brazilian Dreadnoughts," 249; "The Brazilian Battleship," United States Artillery, 188; "Minas Geraes I," Serviço de Documentação da Marinha — Histórico de Navios; "São Paulo I," Serviço de Documentação da Marinha — Histórico de Navios.
- "Launch Greatest Warships," New York Times, 11 September 1908, 5; "Launch Brazil's Battleship," New York Times, 20 April 1909, 5.
- "The Brazilian Battleship," United States Artillery, 185–88; "The Brazilian Battleship," Scientific American, 240–41; "The Minas Geraes," Times (London), 6 January 1910, 4d.
- "The Brazilian Battleship," United States Artillery, 187–188; "The New Brazilian Battleships," Times (London), 22 January 1910, 16f.
- Alger, "Professional Notes," 858–59; "Brazil," Naval Engineers, 999; "Trials of the Sao Paulo," Times (London), 3 June 1910, 7c; "Gun Trials of the Sao Paulo," Times (London), 4 June 1910, 9b.
- Scheina, Naval History, 83.
- "Argentine Navy; Dreadnought Orders," Evening Post (Wellington), 23 March 1910, 4.
- Scheina, "Argentina," 401; "Launch Rivadavia, Biggest Battleship," New York Times, 27 August 1911, 7.
- Scheina, "Argentina," 401; "Moreno Launched For Argentine Navy," New York Times, 24 September 1911, 12.
- "Rivadavia Towed Here," New-York Tribune, 8 August 1913, 4; "The Rivadavia Delayed," New York Times, 24 August 1914, 7; "New Battleship Disabled," New York Times, 3 November 1914, 18.
- Scheina, "Argentina," 401; "Dreadnought Row Ended," New York Times, 21 February 1915, 1.
- "Battleship Sinks Barge," New York Times, 28 March 1915, 5; "The Moreno Again Ashore," New York Times, 16 April 1915, 8; "Argentine Ship Afloat," New York Times, 17 April 1915, 6.
- Burt, British Battleships, 240; Gill, "Professional Notes," 193.
- Scheina, Naval History, 321.
- Scheina, Naval History, 321; Parkes, British Battleships, 605; Burt, British Battleships, 231, 240; Preston, "Great Britain," 37; "British Navy Gains," New York Times, 7 December 1918, 14.
- Preston, "Great Britain," 37.
- Scheina, Naval History, 321; Burt, British Battleships, 240; "The Chilean Dreadnought Almirante Latorre," Naval Engineers, 317.
- Preston, "Great Britain," 70.
- Topliss, "Brazilian Dreadnoughts," 247–49.
- Topliss, "Brazilian Dreadnoughts," 254–57, 260, 263–64, 268; Encyclopædia Britannica, 11th ed., s.v. "Ship."
- Topliss, "Brazilian Dreadnoughts," 269.
- Scheina, Naval History, 81–82.
- Bolt and van Zanden, "Maddison Project."
- Martin, Latin America, 37.
- Topliss, "Brazilian Dreadnoughts," 280.
- Topliss, "The Brazilian Dreadnought," 284.
- Brook, Warships for Export, 133; Vanterpool, "The 'Riachuelo'," 140; Gill, "Professional Notes," 492.
- Martin, Latin America and the War, 36–37.
- Gill, "Professional Notes," 492.
- Topliss, "Brazilian Dreadnoughts," 284.
- Topliss, "Brazilian Dreadnoughts," 284; Gill, "Professional Notes," 555.
- Kaldis, "Background for Conflict," D1135, D1139; Mach, "Greece," 384; Gill, "Professional Notes," 1217–18.
- Topliss, "Brazilian Dreadnoughts," 284, 286.
- Parkes, British Battleships, 597.
- Scheina, Latin America, 321; Трубицын, Линкоры, 4.
- Oakenfull, Brazil, 91.
- Topliss, "Brazilian Dreadnoughts," 285–86.
- Sturton, "Re: The Riachuelo," 205.
- Scheina, "Brazil," 405.
- Topliss, "Brazilian Dreadnoughts," 285–86; Sturton, "Re: The Riachuelo," 205; Gill, "Professional Notes," 192.
- Topliss, "Brazilian Dreadnoughts," 285–86; "E Rio de Janeiro," Navios De Guerra Brasileiros.
- Brook, Warships for Export, 153; Topliss, "Brazilian Dreadnoughts," 285–86.
- Morgan, "Revolt of the Lash," 36–37.
- José Paranhos, Baron of Rio Branco, in Edmar Morel, A Revolta da Chibata 4th ed. (Rio de Janeiro: Edições Graal, 1986), 13, in Morgan, "Revolt of the Lash," 37.
- Love, Revolt, 66–72; Morgan, "Revolt of the Lash," 33, 36–37.
- Morgan, "Revolt of the Lash," 33, 37.
- Love, Revolt, 28–29; 34.
- Presentation to Federal Congress by Federal Deputy for Rio Grande do Sul, José Carlos de Carvalho, 23 November 1910, in Morel, Revolta, 80–84, in Morgan, "Revolt of the Lash," 41.
- Love, Revolt, 30–31.
- Love, Revolt, 29–47; Morgan, "Revolt of the Lash," 40–46.
- Grant, Rulers, Guns, and Money, 158–59.
- Foreign Office, British National Archives, 371/1051, Haggard to Sir Edward Grey, 3 February 1911, in Grant, Rulers, Guns, and Money, 159.
- Grant, Rulers, Guns, and Money, 159.
- Lambuth, "Naval Comedy," 1433.
- Livermore, "Battleship Diplomacy," 45.
- Foreign Office, British National Archives, 371/1518, Haggard to Grey, 19 June 1913, Brazil, Annual Report, 1912, in Grant, Rulers, Guns, and Money, 160; Gill, "Professional Notes," 1257.
- Grant, Rulers, Guns, and Money, 160; Topliss, "Brazilian Dreadnoughts," 283.
- Livermore, "Battleship Diplomacy," 46–47; Hislam, "Century of Dreadnoughts," 146; "Turkey and Greece; Purpose of Dreadnoughts," Poverty Bay Herald, 2 January 1914, 3; "Argentine Pride Outweighs $6,000,000 Profit Greece Offers for Moreno," New-York Tribune, 27 April 1913, 3.
- "Argentine Pride Outweighs $6,000,000 Profit Greece Offers for Moreno," New-York Tribune, 27 April 1913, 3.
- Livermore, "Battleship Diplomacy," 47.
- Gill, "Professional Notes," 934; "Turkey Threatened with Another War," New-York Tribune, 2 November 1913, 12.
- Kaldis, "Background for Conflict," D1135; Livermore, "Battleship Diplomacy," 45.
- Scheina, Naval History, 86.
- Hough, Big Battleship, 19.
- Massie, Castles, 22.
- Fletcher to Bryan, No. 454, 16 February 1914, S.D.F., Chile, in Livermore, "Battleship Diplomacy," 45.
- "Minas Geraes I," Serviço de Documentação da Marinha — Histórico de Navios.
- Brook, Warships for Export, 133.
- English, Armed Forces, 110.
- Scheina, "Brazil," 404; Robinson, "Brazilian Navy.".
- Whitley, Battleships, 26, 28.
- Robinson, "Brazilian Navy"; "Bahia (3º)," Serviço de Documentação da Marinha — Histórico de Navios; "Rio Grande do Sul I," Serviço de Documentação da Marinha — Histórico de Navios..
- English, Armed Forces, 110; Scheina, Naval History, 135–36; Livermore, "Battleship Diplomacy," 48.
- Whitley, Battleships, 27; Topliss, "Brazilian Dreadnoughts," 289.
- Scheina, "Brazil," 416.
- Breyer, Battleships, 320–21; Scheina, Naval History, 153.
- Whitley, Battleships, 29; Breyer, Battleships, 321; Scheina, "Brazil," 416.
- Scheina, Naval History, 136–37.
- Scheina, Naval History, 136–37; Scheina, "Brazil," 416.
- Scheina, Naval History, 327.
- English, Armed Forces, 38–39; Scheina, "Argentina," 419.
- Livermore, "Battleship Diplomacy," 48; Graser Schornstheimer, "Chile as a Naval Power," New York Times, 22 August 1920, X10.
- Preston, "Great Britain," 70; Brown, "HMS Eagle," 251.
- Somervell, "Naval Affairs," 393–94.
- Livermore, "Battleship Diplomacy," 48.
- Scheina, Naval History, 139.
- English, Armed Forces, 148.
- Whitley, Battleships, 33.
- Scheina, Naval History, 112–14; Sater, "The Abortive Kronstadt," 240–253.
- English, Armed Forces, 149.
- English, Armed Forces, 149; Scheina, Naval History, 164; Scheina, "Brazil," 416.
- Scheina, Naval History, 172–74.
- "São Paulo I," Serviço de Documentação da Marinha — Histórico de Navios; "E São Paulo," Navios De Guerra Brasileiros.
- "E Minas Geraes," Navios De Guerra Brasileiros.
- Whitley, Battleships, 21–22.
- Brook, Warships for Export, 148; Whitley, Battleships, 33; "Acorazado Almirante Latorre," Unidades Navales.
- Hough, Dreadnought, 71.
- Hough, Big Battleship, 16–17.
- Waddell, Review of Naval History, 509; Sater, Review of Naval History, 592.
- Scheina, Naval History, 80–87, 234–89.
- Scheina, Naval History, 86–87.
- Grant, Rulers, Guns, and Money, 187–88; 237–42.
- Martins, A marinha brasileira, 201; de Almeida, "A marinha brasileira," 164; Haag, "O Almirante Negro," 87.
- Haag, "O Almirante Negro," 85.
- Scheina, Naval History, 82; Vanterpool, "The 'Riachuelo'," 140.
- Scheina, Naval History, 82; Scheina, "Argentina," 401; Scheina, "Brazil," 404.
- Whitley, Battleships, 20; Preston, "Great Britain," 38.
- Journal articles
- Official sources