Talk:Chaco War
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
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. | ||||||
| Start | This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale. | ||||||
|
|||||||
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 UNIQ7d2e92aa71705369-math-0000089F-QINUstuff, but it still links properly. — Phyzome is Tim McCormack 21:03, 2004 Nov 12 (UTC)
Danny, 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."
[edit] 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)
[edit] 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
[edit] 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.
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
