This article is within the scope of WikiProject Ships, a project to improve all Ship-related articles. If you would like to help improve this and other articles, please join the project, or contribute to the project discussion. All interested editors are welcome. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.ShipsWikipedia:WikiProject ShipsTemplate:WikiProject ShipsShips articles
This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles
Re [1] - at least to my mind, the old (and current) version suggests that the formation of a West African Squadron was necessary - i.e. it was the only possible reaction. I don't think that is correct - Germany might just have given up the colony, or asked other powers for help, or send two different squadrons (the "Red Squadron" and the "Green Squadron"), and so on. That's why I prefer the more neutral "lead to", which I think is undeniably correct. Sorry if I'm two pedantic - its a professional flaw (among other things, I teach formal logic ;-). --Stephan Schulz (talk) 12:47, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Frankly, those are all unrealistic (or nonsensical, in the case of sending two squadrons) options. There's nothing non-neutral about saying it was necessary for Germany to send military forces to protect its citizens - we only get to POV issues when we start arguing that the Germans were right to be there in the first place, which this article does not do. Parsecboy (talk) 12:53, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Sending two squadrons would be very possible if there are two fractions in the admiralty who want to give some glory to different commanders. Or if they send one rapid-response squadron of cruisers, followed by heavier ships. And of course sending military force was a reflexive action expected of powers of the time, but it's not a necessity in the absolute sense. But let's not quibble over historical detail. You don't agree that "necessitated" is bad, but do you actively argue that it is better than "lead to"? Otherwise, if we switch to my suggestion, I win, you lose nothing - in sum, the world is better for me, not worse for you ;-). --Stephan Schulz (talk) 13:00, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
No, that's nonsense - if you knew about the German navy during this period (or any navy during this period, really), you'd know that was strictly impossible for a number of reasons. The Germans couldn't afford to keep one cruiser squadron in active commission year-round, let alone two at the same time, nor could they manage the cost of keeping the ironclads active in home waters beyond the training period in the spring and summer. And they didn't have the manpower to devote to such a deployment. In any event, there are very few necessities in the absolute sense, but for a European power at the time, it was a necessity to send military forces in such a situation.
"Lead to" seems more vague, and the causal relationship is reduced - something can lead to something else, but not necessarily cause it. The commissioning of this ship in 1882 led to it being sent to South America in 1883, but the commissioning did not cause the voyage. How does this suit you? Parsecboy (talk) 14:35, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
.jpg)
