| Revision as of 02:54, 12 September 2012 edit98.81.14.72 (talk) →What about the Falkland conflict?← Previous edit | Revision as of 02:57, 12 September 2012 edit undo98.81.14.72 (talk) →What about the Falkland conflict?Next edit → | ||
| Line 20: | Line 20: | ||
| During the Falkland/Malvinas conflict both Argentine and British troops employed APCs and tanks, so this statement doesn't seem entirely correct. It's far beyound my field of competence, so I haven't done any editing (yet). Maybe there's someone in the know who could elaborate? ] (]) 20:36, 11 May 2008 (UTC) | During the Falkland/Malvinas conflict both Argentine and British troops employed APCs and tanks, so this statement doesn't seem entirely correct. It's far beyound my field of competence, so I haven't done any editing (yet). Maybe there's someone in the know who could elaborate? ] (]) 20:36, 11 May 2008 (UTC) | ||
| :Attacks by ], no matter who "owns the land" are NOT crossborder warfare. Crossborder warfare is like the ] attacking into ] and thence into ], the ] attacking from France into ], ], and ] the ] attacking from France into Belgium, Luxembourg, ], and western ], and the ] attacking from the ] into ], ], ], |
:Attacks by ], no matter who "owns the land" are NOT crossborder warfare. Crossborder warfare is like the ] attacking into ] and thence into ], the ] attacking from France into ], ], and ] the ] attacking from France into Belgium, Luxembourg, ], and western ], and the ] attacking from the ] and ] into ], ], ], ], ], and ], and thence into ], ], eastern Austria, and ], gobbling up as much land as the ] could get.<br> | ||
| :In contrast, the Japanese and the Americans & ] fighting over ] and ] was not crossborder warfare, though tanks were used in amphibious warfare.<br>] (]) 02:54, 12 September 2012 (UTC) | :In contrast, the Japanese and the Americans & ] fighting over ] and ] was not crossborder warfare, though tanks were used in amphibious warfare.<br>] (]) 02:54, 12 September 2012 (UTC) | ||
Revision as of 02:57, 12 September 2012
 | Military history: South America C‑class | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Referencing and citation: criterion met
Coverage and accuracy: criterion not met | South America: Bolivia / Paraguay Start‑class High‑importance | |||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||
What about the Falkland conflict?
Quote: 'Moreover, Bolivia deployed at least three Vickers 6-Ton armored tanks during the war, in what was the first ever (and to this day the only) case of crossborder armored warfare inside the Western Hemisphere.'
During the Falkland/Malvinas conflict both Argentine and British troops employed APCs and tanks, so this statement doesn't seem entirely correct. It's far beyound my field of competence, so I haven't done any editing (yet). Maybe there's someone in the know who could elaborate? Asav (talk) 20:36, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
- Attacks by amphibious warfare, no matter who "owns the land" are NOT crossborder warfare. Crossborder warfare is like the German Army attacking into Luxembourg and thence into France, the Canadian Army attacking from France into Belgium, Holland, and West Germany the U.S. Army attacking from France into Belgium, Luxembourg, West Germany, and western Austria, and the Soviet Army attacking from the Ukraine and Belarussia into Lithuania, Poland, Czechoslovakia, Hungary, Romania, and Bulgaria, and thence into Yugoslavia, Albania, eastern Austria, and East Germany, gobbling up as much land as the Soviet Union could get.
- In contrast, the Japanese and the Americans & Australian Army fighting over New Guinea and the Philippines was not crossborder warfare, though tanks were used in amphibious warfare.
98.81.14.72 (talk) 02:54, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
Internal links
The term "''mate''" is coming out without an underline link to show that there is such an article, or a question mark to show that there is no such article. Should the apostrophes be moved outside of the brackets? I know what the word is refering to, but I believe the apostrophes are messing with the proper linking. -- Zoe
- Yep, the internal apostrophes are preventing link creation. In a previous version of the software you could make such links but they would
create pages names that look something like this: < i >mate< /i > -- which is the HTML equivelant of ''mate''. So the ability to form such links was disabled. Welcome to wikiland BTW, Zoe. --maveric149
- Use a piped link: this link has internal italics and stuff, but it still links properly. — Phyzome is Tim McCormack 21:03, 2004 Nov 12 (UTC)
stuffDanny, as repugnant as User:ZOG is, he's actually adding something valid (and accrate) to this article.
What's wrong with these edits?
"The war also had immediate political ramifications for Bolivia, as the (perceived) mis-management of the war by Salamanca led his own generals to capture him, and force him to step down from presidency."
"Many middle-class Bolivians were humiliated by Bolivia's quick military defeating during the Chaco War which led to a mass movement away from the traditional order known as the "Generacion del Chaco", which was epitomized by the MNR-led Revolution of 1952."
For Martin, have you actually researched the additions to verify that they are accurate, or are you basing your edit on a desire to incorporate Zog's material, whether factual or not. Danny
- I have not researched the additions to verify that they are accurate.
- I am not basing my edit on a desire to incorporate Zog's material, whether factual or not.
- My assessment is that, on the balance of probabilities, the material added by Zog to this entry is probably correct. No reason has been given for its removal, beyond the political beliefs of the person who wrote it. Therefore, I oppose its removal. I would also oppose the removal of content you added if no reason was given beyond "Danny is a Zionist". I hope you would oppose the removal of content I added if no reason was given beyond "Martin is a feminist". Martin
I verify that the statements that Zog placed in this article are accurate. Let's keep them in the article, but ban Zog right away regardless. 172
I can accept the statements coming from 172. As for you Martin, let me tell you a little something about me. I am not a Zionist. In fact, I disagree with Zionism, but I doubt you could understand that. Yes, I know a lot about Zionism. Yes, I speak Hebrew (so does Chomsky) as well as Arabic and English and French and Yiddish and Esperanto and Akkadian and Aramaic with some Russian, German, Spanish, and Japanese. Unfortunately, your assertion is based on a mistaken premise, like so many other of your assertions, i.e., that all the above is causal. I have probably done more for the cause of an independent Palestine than you ever will. So please, don't base your rhetoric on faulty assumptions. Danny
- I was unclear - my apologies. I did put quotes around "Danny is a Zionist", but this obviously wasn't clear enough, particularly given the statement "Martin is a feminist" on the same line. With your permission, I'll edit what I wrote appropriately.
- I'm unclear on what you mean by my assertion that "all the above is causal"?
- Incidentally, I've done nothing for the cause of an independant Palestine, and I have no particular desire to do so. I'm just learning and writing - not necessarilly in that order. Martin
Zog’s contributions ideally should be summarily removed, but it’s far worse to replace a valid contribution by this repugnant scum with something that is completely inaccurate.
He was correct that the mass-based movement reacting against Bolivia’s humilation in the Chaco War was known as the "Generacion del Chaco", which was the impetus for the 1952 revolution. The latest revisions suggest that the MNR-led revolution opposed the "Generacion del Chaco."
casualties versus deaths
"the war's 100,000 casualties" - usually "casualties" refers to both dead and wounded, but 100,000 is the number of dead, right? I don't know enough about this subject to edit it myself, but it should be clarified. 220.253.116.234 01:08, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
The begining of this war
The article says: "Border skirmishes throughout the late 1920s culminated in an all-out war in 1932, when the Bolivian army, following the orders of the President Daniel Salamanca, attacked a Paraguayan garrison at Vanguardia."
"Following the orders of the president Salamanca" is not true. Salamanca orders the exploration and fortification of bolivian units in that territory. He was strongly pacifist and looked for a pacific solution of the territorial conflict. IN fact, a thing used by his political enemies was that: his pacifism and formalism in diplomatic affaires.
The incident in Vanguardia was not ordered by anything. The bolivian patrol was exploring the lake and found , in the oppossite side, buildings used by paragayan soldiers. Surprise and nerviosism make the rst...a soldier paraguayan was wounded and the Bolivian government, watching this, tried to anticipate the logical reaction of Paraguay government. But Paragy army make his retaliation, killin an bolivian officer and other soldiers.
A second retaliation (occupation of a bolivian fortress) by paraguay forced bolivian government to make similar action, pressed by oppossittors and public oppinion. That forced paraguay to make another moves, and thats the war we had. Curiously, war was not declarated initially, by diplomatic reasons but declared (by Paraguay) for tactical reasons (with that, Argentina was declared "neutral" and close the door to bolivian importations (military specially) but not to paraguayan ones.
Article do not said anything about the rol of argentina (colaborating with militar assistance and intelligence information to paraguayan High Commmanders), same work maded by chilean government.
Finally, in the antecedents section we must be clear in the map questions. Bolivia makes clear, from the beggining of the XX century, what territory they claim (basing his petition in Audiencia de Charcas maps). Paragay never express formaly and clearly the territory they were claiming adn fighting for. RedSoldier 02-03-2006
Who wons the war?
No one... but i am not talking about the pacifist topic about "everybody lose in a war". War origin was a territory dispute. But, in deep, the economic interest in petrolitstic regions in the southeast of actual Bolivia.
Formally, Chaco War hasn't a winner. Peace Treaty talk about "Without winners nor losers". Paragay keep the control of the majority territory disputed. That's why some thing they "win" the war. Bolivia keeps the rich oil resources and keeps a port over Paraguay River. Paraguay keep vast territory, duplicating his initial.
- This is actually false information. The problem about borders comes from the poor job the Spaniards did during the colonial times to properly draw each nations borders, thus leaving no documents to clearly state them; yet in Paraguay the entire Chaco region has always been considered Paraguayan territory. This can be supported by historical background, such as why did Argentina claim some Chaco territory after the War of the Triple Alliance if it was originally Bolivian territory? And also, why the need of a war if what Bolivia was after was a port on Paraguay River? Veritiel (talk) 21:20, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
Please,e dit the box info oin the article. Paraguay do not won the war. His ally, Argentina, forced the peace treaty when the war was changing his direction (by obvious reasons, Bolivia was a bigger and more populated country send more soldiers to the field and time was in his favor). RedSoldier 02-03-2006
Contradiction
See Talk:War of the Triple Alliance#Contradiction. --208.76.104.133 (talk) 08:11, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
Paraguay clearly won, if not, answer this questions
How come the war started in 1932, 500 kms from asuncion, the capital city of Paraguay, and ended formally in mid 1935, 1200 kms from there?
How come the final tally of the war, even by bolivians records, mentioned 60.000 bolivian casualties, to only 35.000 paraguayans?
How come Bolivia supposedly started the war at inferior conditions, yet during the war they mobilized more than 250.000 effectives, against only 130.000 paraguayans mobilized for the same period?
At one point, the bolivian army was commanded by a german mercenary called Hans Kundt, regarded in Bolivia as a military mastermind, genius, while acknowledged as a mere corporal in his country. Bolivia changed the whole military high staff 4 times during the war, not to mention that they staged a coup d´etat to overthrow their own president.During this whole period, paraguay kept the same commander in chief J.F. Estigarribia and president of the nation Eusebio Ayala.
Bolivia had 5 airplanes for every paraguayan plane, yet the final tally of the war showed 9 bolivian planes shot versus 8 paraguayans. Bolivia had armored tanks, flame throwers, machinegunes, sub muchineguns, etc. Basically an army fully prepared against the paraguayasn which at the start of the war wer armed with old spanish mausers, bought as a bargain due to manufacture deffects. This were called "mata-paraguayos (paraguayan killer)" because it was evenly likely to cause an injury to the shooter because of manufacture deffects, as to the victim of the shoot.
The final tally of the war for pows was of 20.000 bolivians, versus only 3.000 paraguayans, according to bolivian sources.
Off course in a war nobody wins, except arm dealers and other vultures. Yet from this statistical perspective, is it difficult to muster a conclusion?
Amilcar Zestogonia, paraguayan. If anybody doubts what I´m proposing, then please answer my questions otherwise... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 186.16.65.127 (talk) 04:08, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
Unsatisfactory Map
The map captions "Bolivia and Paraguay before the war" leaves a lot to be desired. It makes it appear that Bolivia, Paraguay and Gran Chaco were 3 different countries. It doesn't show how the border changed as a result of the war.Eregli bob (talk) 16:39, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
Extent of Paraguay's prewar boundaries.
Exactly how much territory did Paraguay control before the war? I've seen maps showing the entire Chaco as part of Bolivia, and others with the border between the two countries along the 26th parallel.
208.101.128.57 (talk) 08:38, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
Bloodiest conflict in the Americas in the XX century?
I think this "honor" corresponds to the Mexican Revolution and its 1,000,000 deads. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 148.87.19.194 (talk) 23:34, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
- Maybe one can have in mind that of the combined populations of the countries taking part in this thing.....maybe it was two percent of the total population that died in the Chaco....was the Mexican revolution in XX century. I thought it was XIX. --83.108.28.69 (talk) 21:28, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
- Mexican Revolution: 1910 to 1919 (don't confuse with Mexican Independence War. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 148.87.19.194 (talk) 22:44, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
A 'blitzkrieg' in the Chaco?
I found somehwhat preposterous the use of the term "blitzkrieg" to describe the Paraguayan advances in late 1934, no matter how quickly the Paraguayan army surrounded and eventually overran its Bolivian counterpart at Yrendagué or El Carmen. The word was coined in WWII, five years after the events the map shows, and implies the use of armoured warfare, something well beyond the reach of Paraguay and its few dust-stricken trucks at the time. Unless a reliable source using the word in a retrospective way can be found, "blitzkrieg" should be removed immediatly.--Darius (talk) 23:24, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
- No comments in two weeks, I have rephrased the caption accordingly. Please, leave your reasons here before reverting my changes, thank you.--Darius (talk) 21:52, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
Civilian death toll in the infobox
Huge civilian casualties in a conflict over a largely deserted region sounds very suspicious. I have read dozens of accounts about the Chaco War and I don't remember any instance of civilians deaths, although I guess there could have been a number of these in the course of Bolivian airstrikes along the Paraguay river or in and around the Bolivian cities of Villa Montes and Charagua in the last months of the struggle. A figure in the thousands, however, seems extremely unlikely.--Darius (talk) 16:07, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
- I thought it seemed unlikely but the source states that and the source is reliable. It may be deaths from starvation and not from direct military action. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.104.213.87 (talk) 16:24, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
- If you read the book can you tell the exact page where the civilian toll is mentioned? That the figure of a war of the 1930s is mentioned in a book named World Military and Social Expenditures 1987-88 is to me unlikely (apart from the reasons given by Dagos/Darius). Chiton (talk) 16:34, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
The year 1987-88 is regarding date of issue. It is that years version which. A new version is released every so often like encyclopedia britanicca. This book is a common source on wiki and is reliable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.104.213.87 (talk) 19:15, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
- Agree with Chiton, you must cite the exact page. On the other hand, I found this comparision of sources regarding the Chaco casualties; the only one focusing on civilian fatalities is Eckhardt. My conclusion is that since the majority of authors specifically mention only combat deaths or at least don't discern between civilians and military personnel, we should refrain from citing Eckhardt per WP:UNDUE.--Darius (talk) 23:37, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
- C-Class military history articles
- C-Class South American military history articles
- South American military history task force articles
- Start-Class South America articles
- High-importance South America articles
- Start-Class Bolivia articles
- Top-importance Bolivia articles
- WikiProject Bolivia articles
- Start-Class Paraguay articles
- Top-importance Paraguay articles
- WikiProject Paraguay articles
- WikiProject South America articles