Talk:List of wars extended by diplomatic irregularity

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

MILHIST 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 lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale.


Contents

[edit] Further examples

I created this list after considering the Three Hundred and Thirty Five Years' War article and, through a little research, noting several other somewhat dubious claims of this type. This page may serve to explain or debunk them, as the case may be. A couple of other possible alleged "extended wars" that I don't have good enough documentation on (only messageboard comments or the equivalent) are the Dutch-Portuguese War and Liechtenstein still being embroiled in World War I (possibly because of its name being misspelled "Lichtenstein" on the Treaty of Versailles). Another great potential for misunderstanding, that of Delaware being omitted from the Treaty of Paris, surprisingly does not appear to have spawned any diplomatic urban legends.--Pharos 04:13, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Well done in creating this list. I saw that it is not WP:NEO. So, a really good work. Try to expand the list. There must be many battles/wars which may fit the list. Thanks, --NRS | T/M\B 04:19, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
Thanks; it did take me a while to come up with an appropriate name. For further examples, I'll be looking for existing semi-serious claims, but it would be WP:NOR I think to go over treaties myself looking for mistakes. I'll keep an eye on the look-out, though.--Pharos 05:26, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
In a secondhand book shop I once found an old almanac that said Liechtenstein remained at war with Prussia (a state which at the time of the almanac no longer existed) by some unspecified oversight. I doubt this refers to the Treaty of Versailles, to which Prussia was not a party. —Tamfang 05:56, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
The World Almanac and Book of Facts of 1928 says on pg. 248 that "Liechtenstein is still technically at war with Prussia"; this is likely the book you are referring to. Of course "Prussia" was often a synecdoche for the German Empire, so this makes sense historically.--Pharos (talk) 23:44, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
Take a look at the Austro-Prussian War of 1866. Also see the entry under Liechtenstein#History for a further explanation. Don't know if any of it is really true, but with Liechtenstein you really never know.--TGC55 (talk) 02:04, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Swedish speakers?

Can someone have a look at Ulf Sundberg's debunking, and confirm that it agrees with my description. To be honest, I only learned of this reference though this Google Answers question. Thanks.--Pharos 05:26, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Actually, it only states that there is no peace treaty and that normal diplomatic relations are working, there is very little about the original war except that San Marino has been neutral in every conflict since 1463. Being neutral, of course, is not an obstacle for Sweden to declare war on them, so it really doesn't mean much. Basically, it states that, for all practical purposes, there is no war, but that much we already know. The formal state of affairs is still not clear. 88.131.91.2 (talk) 09:11, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for having a look at this, which is in a language I cannot read. "Neutral", of course, has two meanings — one, a "policy of neutrality", and the other is not being involved in any wars; I presume that the latter is the intended meaning in this article. And I think it remains highly significant that there is no positive evidence at all that such a war ever occurred. The fact that someone has bothered to debunk this is indeed the only reason I would consider the idea notable for this article.--Pharos (talk) 22:01, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Berwick upon Tweed

  • "Berwick was in fact legally a part of England by this time." - not until the late 19th century. After the peace. --MacRusgail 19:56, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
  • What about the Wales and Berwick Act 1746? What happened in the late 19th century, as I read it, was merely the disincorporation of the county of Berwick and its merger into Northumberland.--Pharos 20:27, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
  • OK, looking again, I've come to the conclusion that it would be most accurate to describe Berwick as part of England and Wales and Berwick at this period. I've adjusted the wording accordingly.--Pharos 20:37, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Korea

Does Korea count, or does calling it a "Police action" actually change anything?

The Korean War was indeed a real war, whether it's considered a "police action" or not. The relevant fact I presume you're referring to is that a peace treaty has never been signed, which in this case is quite a deliberate policy pursued by the two sides of the conflict. That is a very different (and much more serious issue) from the somewhat ridiculous phenomenon discussed here, where the lack of a peace treaty is entirely due to supposed bureaucratic error.--Pharos 03:11, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
The current events page for today suggests that "At the Inter-Korean Summit, South Korean President Roh Moo-hyun (pictured) and North Korean leader Kim Jong-il sign a joint declaration calling for a peace treaty to formally end the Korean War." So, is a peace treaty possible now? Perhaps it would be worth mentioning Korea in the article anyway, even if to say, "The Korean War, which has also been extended beyond 1953 in theory as a result of no formal treaty ending the conflict is not a result of diplomatic irregularity, but of intentional policy." Best, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 21:24, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
I've added the Korean War next to the Kuril Islands dispute in the main paragraph, and mentioned what you pointed out. I think many people who read this article would be wondering about the Korean War, so having it as an example in the opening paragraph like this makes sense. And may I commend Pharos for making a most entertaining article - rst20xx (talk) 01:15, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
I originally included Kuril Islands because that's an unusually clear situation where there is absolutely no chance of fighting resuming. The Korean situation has been considerably more dangerous, but it's the same basic idea, and I'm sure more people would be familiar with this example, so thanks for including it. And I'm glad you appreciate the article.--Pharos (talk) 21:16, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Native Americans vs. Germany

I remember a history professor of mine stating that certain American Indian tribes with the ability to have treaties partially independent of the U.S., though the would join the U.S. forces if they declared war on the same person, declared war on Germany during WWI and didn't sign a treaty with Germany until after WWII, because they had developed a dislike for the country at the time. no time to research now though.

This appears to refer to the Tuscarora (see below section), but I wonder if it might not somehow be connected to the 18th-century Tuscarora War, which actually had some German participants.--Pharos (talk) 00:13, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] American Civil War

I'm removing this, because (1) we can't include every war where a peace treaty wasn't signed, (2) it is quite clear in this case that the lack of a peace treaty was a direct result of the US policy of never recognizing that the CSA was a legitimate government and (3) there has been no "ceremonial peace" or any other special recognition of such an idea in the American consciousness.--Pharos (talk) 21:45, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Quite right. Likely we could find any number of annexations that were not formalized by treaty because the annexed territory did not have a government recognized as competent to submit to it. —Tamfang (talk) 06:45, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Statement by scholar on this phenomenon

The Relativity of War and Peace: A Study in Law, History, and Politics

Fritz Grob (1949)

Page xii

Some of the situations arising from a general idea that war begins on the date of a declaration and can only be ended by a formal treaty or political act, so that Liechtenstein is still "technically at war" with Prussia, San Marino with Turkey, Berwick-upon-Tweed with Russia, and the Tuscarora Indians with Germany, are more worthy of a Gilbert and Sullivan opera or of Lewis Carroll's professors than of legal treatises.

Grob's purpose in this book was properly distinguishing between periods of war and periods of peace (most of the book, aside from this brief statement in the preface, I'm sure covers more serious aspects of the question). I hope to integrate this eventually, as it's the only real scholarly comment I've found on this phenomenon.--Pharos (talk) 00:08, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Roman Republic vs Carthage

I think it is nonsense on the list. There was an agreement of surrender between Hasdrubal and Scipio (polybius and Livy state this). Wandalstouring (talk) 11:48, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Three Hundred and Thirty Five Years' War

Whats wrong with the 335 years war? If, as the article suggests, diplomatic members of those two governments decided to look into it then surely it at least deserves a mention here. At least maybe mention it and say (with references) that it doesn't really count according to some historians or something. Maybe the same deal for Berwick? At least deserves a mention as much as the Spartans vs. the Athenians and the Romans vs. the Carthaginians. We have enough trouble with paperwork from this century, let alone a few centuries into the last Era, those peace treaties could of easily been burned up somewhere and never mentioned because the Spartans didn't care. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.137.207.191 (talk) 11:03, 1 April 2008 (UTC)